justanotherwargamer1

Thanks for asking Hubert. First off it is NOT the two turn duration (which might matter to some, just pointing out it was not a factor to me). I suppose it was mainly the feel of the setting. 1942 the year the Axis had their butts handed to them. But in the demo, if you play the Allies, it's the year the Allies lose the war till further notice. I was concerned about a historicity issue. I am not among the camp that wishes to play as Germany invading the US. That was never an option, and does nothing to make the game seem credible. I do think the Axis had numerous chances where they might have done better. But some choices are just credibility killers. Some is the map itself. I still think the tiles render a poor representation. And I know I am not alone in this. A hex allows movement in 6 only directions, not 8, but those two extra directions come with the cost of movement sleeze that has no business being in a proper game wishing to be treated seriously. In the wargaming world 'sleaze' is a term similar to cheesy or gamey for those not following me. Sleaze is a familiar turn for anyone that has played ASL. Some of my thoughts go back as far as SC1 Some times a portion of the map is simply not required to be rendered.

We all have our turkeys Matrix Games has had duds. They do have demos, not 100% do, but they DO have demos. I know, I've got them. A less than likely remembered title to those new to BF might be GI Gombat (talk about a turkey), which became EYSA at Matrix Games (which was turkey part 2), and then moved on never to be heard from again for the most part. I won't blame BF for the offal that GI Combat was any more than I would blame Matrix Games for the round 2 offal that EYSA was. Eric Young I guess wasn't able to make that game any good regardless of who was selling it for him. You say Time of Wrath is junk, I say Theatre of War is garbage. I've played both. In some ways we might be both correct. Just opinions though. Everyone is entitled to one. Everyone is free to say the opinion is worthless too War in the Pacific is without equal. I still think it's a massively tedious dull game. I don't know why I bought it. Combat Mission is without equal. Just wish it worked on a modern computer. But I'm willing to let them retired into the past if Normandy makes it so I don't need to care. Steel Panthers is a shining moment in gaming history, and Matrix Games provided it for several years for free as a download at their expense. Say what you want about an individual title that didn't quite pan out, but you can't take away the accolades they have earned. Their titles WW2 General Commander and Operation Barbaossa are best described as under cooked. I've played them. Their Battles in series and Airborne Assault series from those two companies need no support from me. They are self evident great games. But as publisher, Matrix Games just sells them, they don't make them. Your beef with Time of Wrath is with the company that MADE the game. I like how Matrix Games 'sells' their games. I will concur about MWIF. It's only beaten in the 'are we there yet' category, by the will it ever appear Combat Leader which they took way too long to finally give up on. I personally would prefer they release it sans AI and just ignore the whiners wanting one in favour of all of us that couldn't care less if it doesn't. Some demos just don't accomplish anything. Some do. Maybe if Hubert had NOT done the SC Global demo, I wouldn't have been turned off by it. it is actually detracting more so than the eLicense. Hubert, stop saying I haven't played the game. I have. I played the demo. It's the game. Otherwise what's the point of the demo? To mislead? I am also basing my own conclusions on the thoughts of others than have most assuredly played the whole game. The review by Steve is not the only one out there. Every wargamer that has played it is a reviewer. Some are happy some are not. If people are unhappy to hear direct mention of rival products on the site here, can't help you with that. Matrix Games is not overly bothered by it. But I generally discuss my own views on wargames on neutral grounds. It cuts down on heavy handed bias shouting me down.

Not sure I would apply the term 'elegant' to any form of software protection actually. elicense is what it is, nothing more nothing less. I am not saying eLicense is the extent of my apprehension though either. There ARE people that think Steve's 95% score is not representative is realistic. Maybe the recent patch will help there. Will the patch improve the demo file? Because the demo was more or less a stake in the heart to my interest. Just letting you know. Once upon a time the demo for SC was the sole reason I was interested in the game. I won't claim to have NOT seen any difficuties with Digital River, as I have seen comments to that effect. I do reserve the right though to suggest your difficulties Happy Cat have no more merit/worth than my concerns with your 'elegant eLicense' And when I consider that most people buying Matrix Games titles consider their method of sales to be the defining reason why they are buying predominantly Matrix games titles, well we have something of a fan boy impasse I suspect. Myself, I have had zero troubles buying digital downloads from Matrix Games for several titles. Digital River has so far to myself and my own experiences been nothing more interesting than the name that shows up as an email saying the transaction went through and a name on a credit card statement. I've yet to have had reason to need to actually contact them at all ever. I would like to correct a matter of specific detail though. Matrix Games does not operate with 'licenses' in the manner in which you phrased it. "The problems with the licensing were only outdone by the crappy customer service from DR." There is no license in the process. You receive an email along with your purchase, it contains a serial number. The number is inserted during installation. There is zero ever requirement to go online during any of the process, be it install, or first time running the game. The serial is required during instalation of any update patch, again no need to ever go online. I have registered all of my games. A simple process. It allows me member access, which I must confess seems pointless, as Matrix Games doesn't really hide all of it's updates/patches for reasons I have been unable to discern. Makes the whole 'member access' routine seem sort of pointless. That's not my concern. I will confirm that not all have liked Time of Wrath by the way. That's just us wargamers being opinionated as always. It's not hearsay as Martin was want to refer to it. Every last pro and con comment is merely opinion, and when written out fancy like is termed 'reviews'. Heck I could be writing reviews myself. And while some will scoff at that idea, that's no biggie to me, I also know some actually give a damn about them (my opinions). I've done beta test work by invite numerous times. I've only ASKED to beta test half the games I have beta tested. Anyway, I think the thread has served my need. I have expressed a dislike for eLicense. I have had private off site comments that might get me to reconsider, maybe. I am still waiting on the game to age a bit too. The recent patch likely will not be the last, as we wargamers are an incredibly fussy lot. I'm even wondering some days if I am inherently losing love for PC wargaming as a whole. I was and still am, more a board gamer wargamer than a electronic medium fan of the hobby. I've been holding off on purchasing a few titles I technically don't have any real beef at all. Chances are I might have enough curiosity with the eventual Combat Mission Normandy title that I need to accept dealing with eLicense whether I enjoy it or not.

Hubert I HAVE played the game. Well I'm assuming the demo IS the game, otherwise it is a peculiar way to demonstrate it Haven't appeared with every release. Missed most of the SC2 expansions. But while I don't visit BF often, I do recognize, if I don't, I can't expect anyone that isn't interesting in leaving BF to encounter anything outside of BF either.

Well like I said, if one doesn't speak up, they don't get heard. Now I'm not so proud I can't change my opinion on something if the case is made well enough. As for heresay:) one man's heresay, is another man's review Unlimited reuses of a license is a good feature. I've witnessed games that had finite sums. Finite sums is definitely an inferior approach. 2 PCs allowing a lanned game at home is a nice gesture. I guess the key phrase is 'key'. If once possessed, this key can be moved from one machine to another offline, that is nice, if able to be done offline. One does wonder though, how does the game know it was unlicensed? Because there logically needs to be a way. Well one would assume it might be required. Otherwise a person can just dump the key onto a room full of machines. Even though the agreement states only 2. I guess "Your PC doesn't even need any internet connection to activate." is the vital detail isn't it. I have not had any beef going online and registering my games over at Matrix Games, essentially an internet requirement, although it has nothing to do with installation. But it does impact access to updates. The updates know a bogus serial when they see it. The elicense is a barrier which may or may not remain. The game design is an issue of opinion though. Some like it a lot, some not a lot. I think a lot of SC1, but it wasn't great on day one, it was great after 1.07 Seamonkey, some beefs are doable some not I vote not to win in elections, but to be able to say I at least tried I've spent a bit of time complaining on communications forums on the Net Neutrality issue, But a lot of us think we are doomed from the masses being to apathetic. Too many people just blindly follow the herd. Some times you get heard, some times not. Right now, my own personal crusade, is to get wargame makers to stop saying wargames can't be made for the console market. They currently just don't want to and that's that. Price? that's lame. Look how many guys willingly pay 100 bucks to play War in the Pacific. Then there's the ASL mob. Sure the average console game costs the average mainstream gamer something like 60 bucks. I'd pay twice that in a heart beat for one of my popular cardboard pushing looking wargames, and wouldn't care a hoot what some teenagers thought of the price as being insane. I'd kill to play SC on my PS3. Even with the f**king tiles. I bought Commander Europe at War for my Nintendo DS. I paid 40 bucks for it. I'd have given them 100 for it without blinking. Sure a teen would just rant all day over the price being stupid. Teens are unlikely to play it for free. Wargamers might moan about prices, but the truth is, were all grown men. We're not kids trying to squeeze money out of a allowance. Ya we all have bills to pay. Cry me a river. I see guys all the time buying the things they want. They find a way. I'm not afraid to buy something though, on the basis of the company might not be there tomorrow. I have watched more games go stale from just being old tech and no longer exciting, than have gone out of viable use because the company rolled over and died. Yeah it happens. Just not enough. Not enough for me at least. No I mainly just don't like some choices. All my recent times wargames purchases have been digital downloads bought through Matrix Games via their service that handles the transaction Digital River. No complaints so far. Has to be working, as Matrix Games seems to be quite the juggernaut of new titles. I'm not interested in a colourful box or a silk screened hard copy disc. I have not yet seem any manuals that were worth the paper. I've seen some nice looking pdf files in game manuals though. I feel I have truly gone modern in my game purchasing. It's just frustrating when you see some of the methods some companies use. Especially when you point out, the ONLY people not suffering, are the ones playing the downloads. It's always the guy who paid getting booted around treated like he can't be trusted. If eLicense is saving you funds, I can't expect you to change. Kinda hard to measure all the unknown non sales that remain unknown because not everyone is as vocal as me But hey, if I wasn't interested at all, I can assure you I wouldn't have posted.

Not sure how Moon will greet this, but it is just one long time wargamer voicing an opinion he thinks has merit, nothing beyond that. NOT going to initiate a long diatribe on DRM. But I WILL say, eLicense is killing sales. And not just here at Battefront. But it IS impacting my own interest in purchasing. It is not just me voicing this opinion either. If you visit other private forums, other company forums, you CAN see that some of us wargamers are withholding support of games all because we won't budge on this issue. Hubert has been by my usual haunt over at Armchair General, and he is happy (logically of course) to have received the positive review of the Global release of SC. I have to confess, I can't see how Steve reached the 95% conclusion. But his article never explains it either. he went on and on about it like he was reading the manual, didn't really express much of an opinion of what he liked about actually PLAYING the game. Anyway, long story short, I am stating quite firmly, the eLicense isn't cutting it with me. It's intrusive. Not to mention, I was reading a thread at Matrix Games about what happens when you suddenly become sans internet at the worst time possible (after your computer situation alters). This wouldn't occur with a Matrix Games installer+serial method. Glad to hear the game's upcoming update is addressing some aspects of the game I thought were a bit troublesome judging from observations.

Speaking on behalf of both Kuni (who asked) and Rambo (I think he would also appreciate it), I must say their recent banning for 6 months is an incredible betrayal of all the support they have lavished on the game, and thus as a result on Battlefront by default. 'I' am known for being both loud and opinionated, but I am just being me whilst doing it. Kuni and Rambo on the other hand have been so completely, and obviously devoted to the game (SC and all it's releases), and are likely in their own way probably the reason for considerable sales of the game as a result of their support. But all that can be just discarded because of some smack talk (and I read the thread guys). This forum (read that as Battlefront) really needs to get a grip. If you can just so casually toss out two of your loudest supporters like they were trolls only bent on being trouble, then that paints a picture of this company that is entirely unfavourable. I am not here to beseech that they be unbanned. Frankly, I told Kuni the insult has been given, and simply unbanning him is not going to really 'fix' anything. This march Commander Europe at War comes to the PSP, the DS and a new version for PC is due as well. This will be followed by Commander Napoleon at War. The message, this publisher (Battlefront) better start deciding if it wants to be even visible in the next decade. Because there ARE publishers like Slitherine that are doing it a lot better, and they are not basing their future on their past achivements. Stop pretending that having made an interesting game in the late 90s, can be milked indefinitely. And stop assuming you can casually throw away you long term supporters. It DOES come with a cost, even if you refuse to admit it.

Not wanting to open a new thread I will comment here, as this is clearly the thread for it. Tried the demo, as the demo has no eLicense baggage. Hubert, ya did a fine job on this one. But I frankly don't support eLicense. It's your prerogative to prefer it, but mine to say it cost you a sale. You are not alone though. eLicense also cost the guys that make WW2 General Commander which also looked like an interesting game. Battlefront can assume eLicense has cost them any sale at all from me additionally. It's not the oft mentioned 'will you still be around' thing necessarily, it's the 'I don't support clumsy copy protection when better exists'. When Matrix Games has Battles from the Bulge ready, I'll likely get a copy even though I hardly need yet another blooming wargame on my computer. All I need do for their games is insert my registered serial. And their method has produced several sales to me in recent years as a result of my approving of the method. Good luck on the game, I think this one looks good enough that I could even deal with the tiles. But I refuse to deal with eLicense on principle.

No it will not be a long tirade (tirade is not the point of the post). I have been around the hobby since hmm forever In that time, certain things have been for me either a hit or a miss. In the board gaming years, mounted map meant a hit, paper map meant hmm maybe not. It was just the way it was for me. Since 2000 I have been into computer wargaming in varying amounts. I have seen it all more or less where how games are made/published. And this includes the means and methods used in protecting them. I don't even need to care about some methods due to how utterly ineffectual they are. And in some cases I actually like the method used and it has no impact on my choice of buy or not buy. I can't and will not be supporting anything using an eLicense. Sorry the method blows dead donkeys. eLicense equals no sale. I have bought several games from Matrix Games in recent years. I have no trouble with their service Digital River, that they employ during the process of buying digital downloads. You get a file, it's an ordinary installer file, you can burn it wherever, and you can install it where ever however and as often as ever. And if tomorrow Matrix Games disappeared it wouldn't mean squat either to the installing of the game. You just need to have a serial. Now we can argue over what works, and what doesn't but we all know, NOTHING prevents piracy. So all you really have in the end, is customers that either will or will not accept your chosen method. I am not planning to chose your method. This basically shuts the door for me on whether or not the game will be 'good' or not. It's not relevant, I won't be getting it if it uses an eLicense. And I suppose this will likely extend to the whole catalogue at Battlefront. Do I suffer" not really, the market has more wargames than I have time to play. Do you suffer? Hmm I don't think I am that important. That is for you to decide. But this is going to remove me from any reason to discuss a game I am not getting I suppose. So I suppose I won't be involved in further pre game or post launch game discussions. I can wish you success on the launch, but I can't support it with my wallet. Sorry.

Not wanting to nitpick, but the F4F was the WILDcat. The F6F was the Hellcat, and it didn't suffer from the Zero much at all. Actually, it wasn't so much the Zero, it was the veteran pilot in the Zero that made all the difference. When the Japanese ran out of vets, those Zeros weren't worth much to them. Post 21 has officially dumped this thread into the Twilight Zone though I think. Might as well now annouce the Allies won because they had god on their side. Mind sets like this are why some grand strategy games can't be taken seriously unfortunately. I'm only interested in simulating REAL military history. For anything flaky, I'd rather be playing a military scifi roleplaying game like Alternity.

Just a quick question. But European games and Pacific theatre games rarely get along at the design level. This plagues both board game as well as software simulations. And global games are usually an uneasy mish mash of both. What do people tend to prefer? Myself, I have found I tend to have a European bias, and usually don't care for the mish mash impact that global has on design concepts. For instance, I own Advanced Third Reich, and am in no particular hurry to get a copy of Rising Sun "somehow". I am also not sold on the idea of getting the fully global evolution of the game. I'm also sort of a fan of A3R over World in Flames which was made as global from the beginning. I've enjoyed playing SC and other European games at the grand strategy level, but am unsure if I will ideally be grabbed up by the Pacific edition. And I have my doubts about enjoying the global version Hubert appears to be envisioning for an eventual project down the road. Just wondering if there are any others with a theatre bias, or if a lot of you are the sort that couldn't care less.

In the end there has to be a "point" to playing. If a game is mired in detail and it allows for the same crazy crap as a game of Axis and Allies, why not just play the damn game of Axis and Allies eh? I want the Japanese to be able to achieve a realistic victory. But I don't much care to play a game out of a science fiction novel. Especially if the game sells itself as being realistic, and has as much connection to serious as a game of Axis and Allies. People that play entirely complicated wargames obsessed with minutae, that have no connection with the real event, are just a bit weird if you ask me

I support eating healthy when possible. Well healthy as opposed to clearly NOT healthy. If you bought it at MacDonalds, it's crap. Amazing what people will buy willingly. My current fav item is a Chicken bacon swiss pita with lettuce, tomato, carrot, green pepper onion and mayo with pita sauce (some call it sub sauce ). Now back to Axis and Allies. Yes, the bomber is likely the biggest potential offender in the game any theatre. More recent editions of the game have greatly aided the game's ability to be a bit more stable. But bombers remain a game killing potential. And the US safe on the opposite side of the ocean from either Japan or Germany is free to abuse the bomber if they play it right. Britain has to hold Africa or the Allies lose, and Russia, well they sit between Germany and Japan who can use some really nasty tag team strategies.

Ate at KFC tonight incidentally. He's right. Been oily like that for years. The only snag with Axis and Allies, is a smart cunning player can cheese the win. You hammer at research till you get heavy bombers. Then add long range for the win. There is NO naval strategy that's going to win against cheaper bombers that can outrange any naval notions. And when one bomber purchased equals 3 rolls of the dice, and a bomber hits as hard as the best units in the game. Well once one side has long range heavy bombers, the other side usually concedes.

Historical limitations raises it's head again. Russia will never side with Germany in any credible wargame. Politically, they both hated each other, didn't trust each other, were planning to stab each ot5her in the back. Germany merely acted first. In a red vs blue setting, this is never a problem. Side with whomever you like. Japan had reasons to leave Russia alone. mostly political ones. The justifications merely need to be present I suppose. But I do favour the notion of a side being boosted out of the game when confronted by sufficiently undesirable political or economic conditions. Being able to get a major power to call it quits, has got to be something of a decisive victory for sure. If Japan had hit the US at Pearl, trashed the oil reserves, and then gone on to win Coral Sea, and succeed at Midway, just how far would they need to go to get the US to back off and declare "winning" not worth the price. There's only so much worth you can attach to indignation being avenged. Would the US commit themselves to a much longer bloodier war willingly. Too often, I see games of grand strategy expect one side, that most see as never haviung had a long term chance of success, to win merely by refusing to die under an overwhelming eventual advantage. Germany vs the allies can't hold out indfefinitely which is why if they are still breathing in 46, yes that is an Axis victory. The same attitude can be applied to Japan. But, why not give the Japanese side a point at which they get to declare "I win" game stops immediately. This notion exists in Axis and Allies actually. The Axis side CAN achieve a point where the allies are informed "you lose".

I've played it a few times. Damned near impossible to win as Japan. Requires the Japanese player to make choices the Japanese high command would never have allowed in the real thing.

It was indeed AH. "Les, isn't this what SC aspires to be?" Not sure about that actually. Red vs blue is not required to fret over a whole mountain of hassles. For instance in a red vs blue environment, there are no famous battles to emulate, no politics to model no technological innovations to recreate. There is no Malta to be screwed up. No Russian Winter No Overlord minus Mulberries issues. No Uboat war No one tries to kill off a nation's leader several times. Nor is there any weak willed appeasers Nor are there any leaders dealing with Isolationist voters. And there are no alliances. The 88 is not made, nor the revolutionary T-34, nor the B-14, or the ME 262 or the Liberty ship. SC never aspired to being red vs blue to my observations. And Blitzkrieg had hexes and stacking (had to point that out). I'm not saying Advanced Tactics is the greatest thing on the market, but, it did make use of the ability to not be trapped by history. And history is always a barrier to a good wargame if it is set in actual history. I've read a lot of good scholarly "what if" commentary on the real what if's that might have actually happened, not the what ifs of total fantasy. Sadly, in some cases, when asked the question, could such and such ever have gone down any differently, the answer usually is No. History is often about events that happened only because the men in charge were blind to the errors of their thinking. Did Japan ever have a real chance of winning? Probably not. Yes, that does tend to suck the life out of the fun of playing a grand strategy game set in WW2 Pacific. I've played games where the basis of "winning" was determined by how well you did before defeat. I've played some games where I won only through incredible daring and a preposterous bending of logic. I've WON as the British vs the Japanese in Malaya. The thing is, I also ilustrated a fatal flaw in the game's design.

I am loath to mention this, because it is looking increasingly like it will show up about the same time Combat Leader does (never), but the work on Computer World in Flames may well be the happy medium a lot of wargamers are wanting. Real wargame look. Fully global, not theatre specific. Detailed, turn using, hex based. Based on a design that had to survive in a board game reality. But it may well suffer from being to close to War in the Pacific, and too far from Strategic Command. If I want brutally accurately simulated, I can always start up my War in the Pacific. But there's a reason I don't play it. It's as fun as a long day at the office and no one else showed up for their shift. Somewhere, somehow, I think the perfect game is a mix of Advanced Tactics from Matrix Games, and Strategic Command from here. Maybe Hubert's best move, would be to code us a non WW2 game of grand strategy where it's just red vs blue and looks amazingly like a lot of real battles, but not hung up on really being WW2. If it isn't really the Pacific, then the cultural ideosyncracies of Bushido won't get in the way of how they attend to their war.

Arado, alas there ARE some truths in wargaming. One truth is the closer you get to squad tactical, the easier it is to make the game That likely explains why the closer you get to squad tactical, the more games actually exist. I have to say though, no level is easier to make an AI for. It's not that there's no point, but, at grand strategy level, you can't always rely on a counter to be realistic at the design level. The problem being, as I see it, is a lot of wargamers seem to loathe abstractions until they are fully explained why the abstraction exists, and what it is abstracting. I might be using too few resources on my comment about the Japanese subs. But regardless, the sub war would still be best done as an abstraction. Now the Admiral Leader effect is a good notion. I like that one. But at the grand strategy level, if you can excuse a naval leader, you need to then incorporate air leaders. But I don't require them to be assigned to a counter necessarily. Although out in the middle of the Pacific they sure need to be somewhere

Fair enough (good response). I am not saying that is not in the game (of course I'm not, I don't have the game ). But I do see this problem in games on occasion where the effect isn't present in any identifiable fashion. Rambo is looking for Seebees as a unit (I think), I can't support that, no way to make it a viable counter. Those units were maybe a lot of men if you put the whole lot of them in one room from the entire theatre. Now to beat the sub idea to death, why not make subs no less an effect. In A3R (which isn't perfect by the way), subs were a simulated effect. And if the allies refused to match that simulated effect with ASW, the allies suffered losses economically. No counters were employed in the unit on the board sense of the word. If the US pushes for more subs in the Pacific, the Japanese should suffer an increase in impact on resources reduction. Of course the fact that the Japanese didn't seem to do anything to counter the subs means the Japanese don't really get much of a means to respond. Japanese cultural thinking at the time sure was weird on the war.

That's way to vague, could you be a bit more specific?

Pity there is no "SC General Discussions" for just this series of games. No, the idea of putting "general" commentary in this sites actual General Discussions is so utterly laughable, I'll just ignore that suggestion if offered. I'm picking the Pacific Theatre forum, because at the moment, it's about the limit of my attention. I'm mostly responding to some thinking that I think I can credit to Rambo. Possibly Kuni as well. The Seebees for instance. I can recognize the difficulty inherent in making a counter for a formation that could never justify a counter. It's not that the counter lacks strategic importance, no, it's that the counter would be putting all of the eggs in one basket, a condition that would never be possible. But here's the snag. This is a strategic simulation, and the Seebees were of considerable strategic importance. No Seebees equals a game missing a major element. Miss enough major elements, and you have a simulation that isn't simulating. The trick is how to represent an element, without need for a "counter" to represent it. Use too many counters to represent too many aspects where a counter is of no capacity to represent the element, and you accomplish nothing. This harkens back to my complaint about subs. It was the silent service for many reasons. Sadly while was it WAS important, but it wasn't very visible. Giving the US sub counters in a game at this scale, is basically stupid, and invalidates the games credibility. The US sub force was critical to the war in the Pacific, as critical as Uboats in the Atlantic. And you didn't get to see them do their thing. They weren't in any famous battles. Well if they were, you won't see them participating directly. Thus having those subs appear in the game will be a mark against the game. Coral sea, where were they? Midway, where were they? The Turkey Shoot where were they? This list could go on for several more famous battles. I've been recently reading a book on the early years of the air war portion of the conflict in the Pacific. And not just the US portion dating from Pearl Harbour. Good luck representing this part of the war with conventional unit counters when in a lot of cases the forces involved were small portions spread out over a very large area. Is the solution to use unit counters that are on their last legs just to make them seem small enough acceptable? Possibly. It's not like the player gains a great advantage owning 10x 1 strength fighter units instead of a 10 strength fighter unit. And the player isn't forced to decide where to unrealistically dump an entire fighter force that would have been spread over thousands of miles of responsibility. I remember reading of events from the war, and wondering, well, how do you recreate that? The Raid on St Nazaire really happened. The Germans really DID lose that dry dock. It really DID alter their strategic resources. And it only took one ship loaded to hell and gone with explosives to accomplish that task, plus the commandos to see to it that ship got that chance. That's strategic events, that if just unilaterally ignored, make it possible to wreck a lot of a sides needs to garrison occupied territory. But how does the game accomplish garrison duty? 1 counter can represent enough men to garrison all of the beaches Northern France, but you can't place that one counter on each location of Northern France. In the Pacific, it will be the trouble of how to represent the Japanese garrisoning many Islands with a single counter, and not being forced to pick just one island to actually protect. If the game plays incorrectly, then the "strategy" will have nothing in common with the real war, and our strategies will never need cope with real world concerns, and all the accuracy arguments will be really quite pointless. Who knows, this might be part and parcel of why "good" grand strategy games are few and far between. It's pointless to spend a lot of energy coding a computer wargame about an event, if the game is not able to recreate the event in the first place.

Keep in mind if Canada had your cash, you'd need to RUN to keep up with us I think Afghanistan is the limit of our nation's budget. To contribute to the current theme, had a grandfather that toured the Low Countries in the cause of freedom. I am the most recent family member to wear a uniform though.

Any earlier than Dec 25th is sooner than anyone needs Think of the wives Hubert, most of these schmucks likely never give the ladies any suggestions for under the tree.

Hubert, I've never disliked let alone hated Strategic Command. Your game's interface is still a major hurdle to beat. It had a few errors, but I think every game has a few errors. SC2 though, disappointed me, in that it didn't expand on SC1, it was an entirely new design. I just don't really like SC2 much. I'm unsure what the Pacific game will be like. I'll just have to see the demo I guess. Pacific theatre grand strategy though, is still mostly under exploited territory.