First Impression

[DeGaule]

I feel I getting into this a little late but what the heck.

If I understand correctly , the demo accuratly represent the Order of battle wich with we will find ourselves playing in the Scenario covering the Fall of France period of the war.

Assuming thats the fact let me offer the following comment.

France: No tanks at start ? They explanation for this I'm sure is that French Army doctrine at the time was that tanks were to be infantry support vehicule, that " High Command stupidity " resulted in a much dilluted Tank Force all along the line with poor coordination in large scale manoevers(lack of training no doubt) however the french tanks were more powerfull than their German counterpart and there was a very good numbers of them available for battle. And France junior officers new how to exploit their Machines as the Arras Counter-attack showed in the later part of the Battle for France. I respectfully submit that if all i wanted was to be able to repeat the error of the French High Command I would gladly accept having no tanks.... but....if Im to be Strategic Commander...give me my tanks and let me use them as I see fit. France opening order of Batle should have one left Inf corp and 1 tank corp.

I could possibly accept the absence of French tanks on the "doctrine" excuse..I could buy some I guess, but if the French army is deprived of its tank based on that kind of rational then something much be done to downgrade the Italian navy and fast!! Because not only was its crewed by Italian sailor wich spent way to much time ashore..but it was commanded by the most inept bunch of admiral that the world's combined navies ever produced. The Royal Navy took them on with WW1 retread ships, in confined and hostile waters, and handed them defeat after defeat.the Italian had to resort to using frogmen to inflicyt damages to British Heavy ships. and ended up begging the german for the use of a Luftflotten to be able to stop the malta convoys.If France as no tanks...take away half the Italian Navy rigtaway please.

thanks for your patience with my 1st timer rambling.

[Mr. Clark]

There is some very good news for you!

If I understand the way it will work correctly, then the Scenario/Campaign editor is the answer to all your problems! You should be able to use it to set up the battle/forces any way you imagine it to be.

[willgamer]

Is there a rule that all game criticism must be one long paragraph?

[Straha]

It's indeed the doctrine, and to change it you have to buy a tank army. That it is costly to do so "last minute" is a correct representation of the strategic and structural facts in 1939. But if you buy the tanks, you actually get much bang for the buck.

But, as Mr. Clark said, there's also still the scenario editor.

Btw while it is true that the French tanks had better armour etc., this is not the whole story. E.g. they lacked radio communication which is vital, too, if you want to use them in the role the Germans did. Some tank models could not turn their turrets, either.

Straha

[gredeker]

Originally posted by Straha:

It's indeed the doctrine, and to change it you have to buy a tank army. That it is costly to do so "last minute" is a correct representation of the strategic and structural facts in 1939. But if you buy the tanks, you actually get much bang for the buck.

But, as Mr. Clark said, there's also still the scenario editor.

Btw while it is true that the French tanks had better armour etc., this is not the whole story. E.g. they lacked radio communication which is vital, too, if you want to use them in the role the Germans did. Some tank models could not turn their turrets, either.

Straha

Don't forget the one- and two-man turrets of the French tanks, compared with the three-man turrets of the Pz III's and IV's.

[grimlord]

yes and it was doctrinal....seems that the french order of battle reflects it in the amount of armies that they have...

the frnch tanks while much heavier than the panser II&III's were never used effectively and were based on the idea of them being soley infantry support....

many of the allied forces did not equip their tanks with radios either (british and the russians to be exact), in fact the russians didnt start until after 1942-3

the french had a lot more wrong with their doctrine than just tanks and the allies of 1940 were no where near as cordinated as in 1945

the germans pretty much taught the allies their doctrine throughout the war....and it seems as if with a few exceptions the designers set the force structure right on...especially for game play purposes

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Straha:

But, as Mr. Clark said, there's also still the scenario editor.

Ummm...but if it was done right in the first place, there should be no need to use the editor to build a "correct" scenario. Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.

[Straha]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

SNIP Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.

What do you mean by this?

Straha

[Patgod]

heavier french tanks are modeled btw. france starts with 1 level higher tank research then germany

[Straha]

Originally posted by redeker:

Don't forget the one- and two-man turrets of the French tanks, compared with the three-man turrets of the Pz III's and IV's.

Right, how could I forget that! How important this is in actual battle did again show later during Barabarossa,too.

Straha

[ May 28, 2002, 08:17 PM: Message edited by: Straha ]

[Straha]

Originally posted by grimlord:

SNIP...and it seems as if with a few exceptions the designers set the force structure right on...especially for game play purposes

Yup, and in this case it is even the right decision with respect to gameplay AND the facts in '39. There were French tanks, but no French tank corps.

That the player still can buy a tank army to turn things around is a nice twist, though.

Straha

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Straha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

SNIP Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.

What do you mean by this?

Straha</font>

[Mr. Clark]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

SNIP Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.

What do you mean by this?

Straha</font>

[BloodyBucket]

Apologist Lackeys is perhaps not the right term. Enthusiastic Supporter might be more in line.

It is a semantic difference, not unlike the difference between Constructive Critic and Ungrateful Faultfinder. Merely a difference of perception.

If someone points out that there is a scenario editor, so each player can tweak the game to his liking, that is hardly the behavior of an apologist lackey. The existence of a scenario editor does not imply that the scenarios that came with the game are incorrect. IIRC, Straha was very vocal about changing details in the map early on, not the sort of thing an apologist lackey would do.

I have yet to see anyone come across with a "SC, love it or leave it" attitude. Merely speculating as to why the French don't have a tank group in the demo and pointing out that the scenario editor is available to create one if desired is not very narrow minded.

If being excited about SC makes one an apologist lackey, than that's what I am. There is room for improvement, the demo is only a beta with that in mind, and from what I read Hubert is getting a lot of input. I am content to chip in my two cents without disparaging the opinions of others.

[Tripps]

Originally posted by DeGaule:

[QB]

If I understand correctly , the demo accuratly represent the Order of battle wich with we will find ourselves playing in the Scenario covering the Fall of France period of the war."

Nah, I dont reckon at all, its just Huberts interpretation on the OOB in the game.

"Assuming thats the fact "

well the rest, if based on that asumption, needs modifying

Never mind, on the scale the game is played, its fine.

By the scale i mean the minumum of micromanagement, no need to worry about this corps having 105mm or 150mm arty, wheres the German medium bombers that wiped out Rotterdam? are these PII Panzers or PIV?

you cant go through and work out the effectivness of the Italian navy without a MILLION other variables as well.

But guys, handle it and harden up, disagree with whats being posted if you must, but i'm sure Hubert is expecting some flak over the game, and praise as well, and is prepared for some dissing, but by everyone posting what they like and dislike about the game, then Hubert can glean through it and decide what to implement/not implement, thats the whole purpose of beta yeah?

for whats it worth

[Straha]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Straha:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

SNIP Hehe...it's pretty funny how many apologist lackeys there are on this board.

What do you mean by this?

Straha</font>

[SuperTed]

Straha,

Shouldn't you be changing the course of rivers instead of feeding trolls?

[ May 29, 2002, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: SuperTed ]

[pzgndr]

I don't really plan on tweaking ANYTHING w/ the editor.

That's fine, the default game should be playable and fun for everyone. For those of us who cut our teeth on games with cardboard counters and paper rules and still maintain a burning desire to tweak whatever we want to tweak, a powerful editor would be great. Beyond the basic scenario editor currently offered, which is limited, something which will allow us to edit default game parameters and the map could be provided. I don't expect Hubert to jump and change the code every time someone makes a suggestion, but at least give us some tools with the game so we can tweak stuff if we want to.

[Titan]

I think the initial OB is fine.Going on the scale of the game my interpretation on the Armour aspect especially regarding france is that the Corps and army corps would have an inherient amount of armour anyway which was the case with France historicially,they did use them in penny packet groups.Just like we interperate that the Artillery AT guns Etc is all part of the army corps etc.The germans i feel had there Armour organised that i think they need to start off with Armour corps to represent that fact.

The fact that the French seem to hold on for a few mnths or so in the game means to be Hurbert has the balance right.

Start adding a few tanks corps here and there to the Brits and french and it will through it out abit.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by SuperTed:

Straha,

Shouldn't you be changing the course of rivers instead of feeding trolls?

Hehe...I'm hardly trolling, SuperTed. I've been on the BTS board for over 2 years, and this is the first time anyone has even insinuated that I'm trolling.

Straha, perhaps my wording was imprecise as Bloody Bucket pointed out. However, my point stands that several people on this board avoid the question What's new in SC that I can't get in other games?. Or worse, instead of answering the question, they/you make excuses for why it's not different. I've never said that I'm correct and Hubert et al. are not, so I'm not sure why people are leaping to that ill-gotten conclusion. :confused:

Rather, I'm posing some questions that I and otherse obviously feel should be addressed. If I can play a strategic level WWII game that is several years old and offers more than SC, then something is wrong here. This is the crux of my critical postings...if you want to take that personally, than by all means stew over it if that makes you happy. That was hardly my aim, however, but I had to word my concerns a bit more strongly seeing as I was continually blown off up until this thread with regards to my central question.

[BloodyBucket]

That is an interesting question. I don't think you can say SC is offering anything really revolutionary. It is, at the core, a hex based, turn based game going over ground that has been plowed many times before. It is very true that SC does not cover most aspects of the war in as much detail as other games that came before it did.

If you are looking for detail, or complexity, I think SC is going to be dissapointing. The graphics aren't going to blow anyone away, and the interface is not anything amazingly new.

If SC really takes off, it will be because of a hard to define quality that might be termed elegance. There are some very simple games that seem to have this quality and become a case of the sum being greater than the parts. If there are no glaring errors (game crashing bugs, canned strategies that always work) than SC has a shot at this.

The appeal of a simple game that has good historical feel and can be played to conclusion in a reasonable amount of time should not be discounted. Battle Cry, the Milton Bradley/Avalon Hill boardgame, has a loyal following based mostly on these factors, plus good looking components and a system that you can tinker with (scenario editor, anyone?) and yet it is nowhere near as detailed as countless American Civil War games that came before it.

That is what SC has going for it, IMHO. You might say that it has a chance at becoming the Bejeweled of WWII computer games, and that would not be a bad thing for Fury, BTS and gamers.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Excellent post, Bloody Bucket. This is exactly what I've been trying to get at. I certainly think that SC has the potential to be one of those can't-put-it-down games, but it still needs something...I can't quite put my finger on it. Admittedly, perhaps this is because it is still in Beta, but I'm hesitant to write it off with that as the reason.

If the success of SC is going to be due to its elegance, then we can pretty much write off a lot of these arguments based on historical accuracy (a historically accurate simulation or game it isn't!). The only thing that I've found attactive about SC over the other games of this scale that I've played (and continue to play) is the fact that SC can be quickly played in an evening. This means that unlike groggier games, I can actually play it with my wife. Hehe...if $25 is the price of domestic tranquility when it comes to gaming, then it's worth the price.

[Desert Dave]

... elegant like iris-ends bending

in a sudden! sunrise breeze, dew

bejeweled as meadow flowers -- hour into hour,

communing with the buzz-about bees...

I would agree.

[rleete]

I consider myself the ultimate "beer & pretzels" wargamer. Everything from Avalon Hill, continuing up through Empire Deluxe (anyone remember that one?), Axis & Allies, all of the Panzer General series, ad infinitum. I am not a grog by any means, and I regularly get stomped when playing CM.

What SC holds for me is the replayability. I've tried many different strategies, and the AI seems to be able to adjust to them quite well. Whenever I think that "if I just do this, it will work", the AI changes it's strategy to counter. While PBEM is great, it isn't at the sacrifice of a decent AI to play a quick game. As anyone who has played the computer version of A&A knows, certain fixed strategies will win (easily) every time. That isn't the case with SC, and that in itself would be well worth the price.

The fact that this game has shown the same support as the BTS crew (all hail Hubert), with it's open forum and ready opponents is icing on the cake.

[Patgod]

i've been invading russia in august of '40(see other thread). each time i do VERY well and drive deep. however each time the demo's time limit ends with me at the gates of moscow. each time i try something "a little different" to capture the city. most recently my plans were foiled by the AI building 8(yes, eight) corps right in the middle of my advance. that'll teach me to bypass citys.

while i did knock out all of the corps, and take the town they were based around it delayed me by many weeks.