EB. Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 The map is done, the engine exists. Now please make a version of Strategic Command covering World War One. Or any other war in history. I will buy every game which you make like this SC. Even the American Civil War would be great. (By the way, the key to the Northern victory in the US Civil War was, in my opinion, tremendous Soviet military production. Oops, wrong thread.) I created a very good scenario for the Operational Art of War dealing with World War One, but I would still love to see one from battlefront. Maybe what we really need is a fully editable game just like Operational Art of War except on a strategic level. That would be heaven-sent. Make that and we will name a city after you. Or at least a village. All the best, EB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl G. E. von Mannerheim Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 I am perfecting a campaign which takes place in 1962 following the Cuban missle crisis, it works fairly well. CvM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
docd Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 I hate the way to scroll the map in Operation Art of War. Is there another way? I only played the demo, do you think it is worth to buy full version of TOAW I, until Hubert designs SC2??? And does it work under XP???? Isn´t it to complicated?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trapiche Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 You could buy TOAW:Century of Warfare which contains Toaw 1 and 2 as well as all add-ons. A great buy but alas does not work very well on XP. If anyone got any tips to make it work better on XP I'd be a happy gamer. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Wagner Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 For World War I, check out the game on this site... http://www.adanaccommandstudies.com/IntroTrench.html I'll be purchasing it although I'm not certain when it will be released........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 16, 2002 Share Posted October 16, 2002 Originally posted by EB.: (By the way, the key to the Northern victory in the US Civil War was, in my opinion, tremendous Soviet military production. Oops, wrong thread.) All the best, EB.Hehe. That was actually pretty funny... Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EB. Posted October 16, 2002 Author Share Posted October 16, 2002 Wagner: Thanks for the suggestion to check out adana--in fact, I have already done this and even pre-ordered the game. We will see how good it is. In fact, I pre-ordered both the civil war and world war one games from them. I downloaded their free civil war game (the one that they are fixing up for the update) but it sucks. Anyway, thanks, EB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted October 22, 2002 Share Posted October 22, 2002 Aftermath of Brest-Litovsk variation -- There's an alternate history idea I've always been interested in based on the Treaty of Brest- Litovsk. It employes the premise that Germany accepted the Allies 1918 terms and vacated Belgium and Northern France in exchange for holding onto their winnings in the East. According to "Brest-Litovsk, The Forgotten Peace, March 1918", Wheeler-Bennett, 1938, available in Norton Library edition -- The Bolsheiviks ceded to Kaiser Germany an area consisting primarily of the Ukrain, east to, but not including, Rostov, in the center going to but not including, Kursk, and in the north and heading straight north from Mohilev to the Baltic Sea, encompassing the three Baltic States and stopping at, but not including, Lenningrad. On the map in the book the Baltic States are referred to as Courland, implying they may or may not have been seen as a single entity. Most other accounts are rather vague as to the ceded territory, usually saying Germany would have received an area including the Caucasus and going to the Urals, but that is obviously not the case. Germany wisely set up puppet states (Ukrania and others) instead of ruling these areas directly. This helps explain the welcoming committees that first greeted Barbarossa's initial spearheads. Which changed after the combat troops moved on and the goonsquads arrived to rape the countryside and turn everyone into partisans. In my scenario Stalin starts the war by invading Ukrania out of the Kursk region. Due to SC mechanics, the Axis area is set up this way: Poland has surrendered and the Baltic States are Axis allied, along with Hungary and Rumania. The affected area of the Ukraine has it's hexes and cities colored Axis, including the Caucasus. England and France are also at war with Germany. The Austro-Hungrian Empire is long gone, collapsed from within as it did historically and The Ottoman Empire is carved up by England and France, having been defeated in 1918, again, as happened historically. It starts it in Sept '39 with the Allies having the initiative. Under the circumstances I'm not sure Russian partisans are justified, but they make the game more interesting so I'll probably leave them in. Figuring how the Nazis fit in is a problem -- I rationalize it as the Kaiser's government falling during the unsettling early '20s. Perhaps, even though avoiding defeat in the war, the Old Regime could have lost popular support due to economic stress, lingering war weariness, with all those factors being enflamed by left wing revolutionists. A brief period of upheaval with the vacuum being filled by the Nazis (hopefully a militant by not murderous or viciously rascist version) probably much earlier than 1933. Fictionally, I'd see something like the Weimar Republic struggling to maintain order with old Fieldmarshals Hindenburg and Ludendorf as it's first and only presidents, giving way to actual history with the National Socialists placed in power to counter the communists only to pull off their own coup. In this historical setting I think it would have happened around 1925 instead of 1933. It's interesting to speculate what they'd have been like without the Versailles Treaty to attack and without the stab-in-the-back scapegoats produced by defeat. It very nearly occurred, or something quite similar. Germany misread it's chances after defeating Russia and opted for total victory. A second scenario is an experiment on the premise that the Hindenburg-Ludendorff offensive succeeded before the A.E.F. arrived in force and became a factor. Having broken through the trenches, German formations from the East, flushed with victory, overwhelm war weary and often mutinous French divisions and capture Paris in 1918. Britain and France decide to cut their losses and immediately sue for peace. Germany returns Paris and the areas occupied in Northern France, but keeps Belgium (during the twenties absorbing Holland, somehow, to form the Low Countries territory) and remains in the French mining hex and the region to it's east. In game terms Germany occupies the Maginot Line. presumably with all this new territory it would have fortified it's new Western border. As in the first scenario, Germany has the Ukrainian / Baltic regions previously described with Rumania & Hungry as Axis allies. France has a strong army with HQ and air units. Like the USSR, she is thirsting for revenge and the return of her mining region. England must either be surrendered or on the allies, of course, but it makes sense she would have lined up against so powerful a German state. Germany, in these scenarios, is the underdog. Having been the victor in WW I, or at least the victor in the East holding conquered territories, she starts immediately with territory being invaded and a two front war to deal with. The problem is play balance, there's no point stacking everything in one side's favor. I see Germany having the most interesting situation -- it must decide which foe to counter first. France is stronger than the Soviets but can be defeated more quickly in it's smaller area. On the other hand, if too few units are sent east, Russia rolls quickly to Poland and Rumania in the opening offensives. Meanwhile, Britain is in the wings. I leave Italy neutral but strongly pro-Axis. The United States is also left neutral; probably it should be changed to Random after the fall of either France or Russia. This basic situation, an immediate two front war to the east and west, is exactly what Schlieffen was planning for in the late nineteenth century. Some interesting considerations involve tactics and weapons development during this inter-war period. For one thing, not having been routed by massed air power and large number of tanks, Germany might not have developed the Blitzkrieg doctrine, though certainly Heinz Guderian and other visionaries would have explored it's possibilities in any case. In "Achtung-Panzer!" he traces his interest in tanks to the lost role of cavalry in WWI, and specifically it's failure to expoit the infantry's successful march through Belgium. It might be interesting to start off with a primarily infantry war, no tank units, and only a scattering of air fleets on both sides. Everyone should have low technology. I'd give Russia level 1 for heavy tanks, England and Germany level 1 for ground radar and naval guns, Germany level 1 for submarines and rockets and Britain level 1 for heavy bombers and sonar. Additionally, Britain and Germany would be given three free research points at the start with the USSR and France 1 apiece. Historically both Britain and Germany were researching jet aircraft in 1939; the German program was considerably more advanced but, in their infinite wisdom, the Reich totally ignored those efforts when the shooting began. A year or two later, when interest was revived, the jet aircraft technicians and researchers had to be brought back, in many cases, from combat duty! Possibly Germany and Britain should have jets, level 1, at least Germany, the problem being once it hits level three there the side possessing the higher technology has a huge, often decisive, edge. As the U.S. doesn't start it can't be activated to benefit from any of this; otherwise it would be reasonable to give her level 1 on radar, 2 on heavy bombers, 1 on sonar and two free research points. It seems reasonable to assume the German fleet would be fairly large and modern. I'd give it two aircraft carriers (presumably there wouldn't have been the ruinous inter-service squabbling over naval aviators vs air force pilots), two battleships and four cruisers with two U-Boats at sea and two with the Baltic Fleet. If anyone develops these ideas I'd like to know the results. Some useful books are: "Germany's Aims in the First World War" -- Fritz Fischer, 1961 "The End of Austria Hungary" -- Leo Valiani, 1966 "The Defeat of Imperial Germany, 1917-1918" -- Rod Pachall, 1989 (as mentioned above) "Brest-Litovsk The Forgotten Peace March 1918" -- John W. Wheeler-Bennett, 1938 [ October 22, 2002, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts