SeaMonkey Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 Thinking about this community's rants that tend to go a little off topic at times and in which I surely contribute to, all in jest of course, let's start a thread with substance to commemorate Les' return yet again. And to celebrate Kuni's additional added (positive) label of MVP poster child. So what constitutes a "REAL" SC master? Sure I know Terif is considered "the" Master, but what attributes do we tie to this stereotype? Is it the guys who excel in the bidding and TCIP "Fall Weiss" cookie cutter strategy, playing the scenario to oblivion with the same moves and abandonment if things don't work out as planned? Or is it the guys who excel at the innovative moves that continuously pull their butts out of the fire whenever everything seems lost....the endeavor to persevere? Could it be that human that contemplates and plays to higher expectations when put in an unfamiliar novel custom scenario which may be completely, purposely slanted against his side? Is it the guy who knows the opening moves to Fall Weiss infallibly, or the one who studies the mechanics, ever able to extract himself from any dire consequence. Well??? Will the "REAL" SC Masters please standup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 The test of real generalship is being able to adapt to different situations and still perform well. A good Fall Weiss player will without doubt be a good SC player, but if they can only do well at Fall Weiss because they have memorised all the correct moves for the first few years of the war then they will never be an excellent SC player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
it's Les Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I am not a master, I have never claimed to be a master. I am in the SC Strategy Guide credits though, and I have no idea how that happened. I have not designed any campaigns, but that's mostly because I enjoy the vanilla install of the game enough. I have championed the game abroad and defended the art of real wargames vs idiotic poorly thought out concepts of what is supposedly a true wargame. But that just doesn't make me a SC master. I never quote specific historical data at length and I don't compile long lists of data, but I can tell you when a design has missed the mark. I really have no idea why people get so annoyed when I leave, and so annoyed when I return I don't even know why people care what I say hehe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comrade Trapp Posted October 19, 2004 Share Posted October 19, 2004 I'm the SC Master, nuff said..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pzgndr Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I am in the SC Strategy Guide credits though, and I have no idea how that happened. So is Rambo and Kuniworth, just to maintain equilibrium in the SC universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonheart Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Originally posted by Bill101: A good Fall Weiss player will without doubt be a good SC player, but if they can only do well at Fall Weiss because they have memorised all the correct moves for the first few years of the war then they will never be an excellent SC player. Sry, but this is nonsens as only the first couple of moves are standart in Fall Weiss ...then everything depends what the allied player is doing...and dependant from the allied player skills the game can go every direction ...with many new situations and places to fight. I dont believe this FW is always the same story and i think many ppl will agree. Another great scenario is Fall Blau giving as well alot of possiblities for both players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill101 Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 Perhaps I overstated the case, but I've been surprised how a number of experienced SC players have floundered in the other campaigns, like 1941. I'm not saying that they should have won in their first attempt, but when people give up not very far into the game saying that they don't know what to do, then it shows that they haven't got a good grasp of strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
it's Les Posted October 20, 2004 Share Posted October 20, 2004 I have to agree with Bill101 here. It's a common failing in alot of wargames both board game and computer options where a player memorises the "perfect opening moves". They have the game down to an absolute science, but if the game diverts from the ideal, they often flounder or even worse drop out saying the game is lost. It's not ideally nice to play games like that as the punching bag allies though. I have yet to play a good WW2 grand stratgy game where the allies get to be anything but a target. Strong SC character requires the player be MORE than willing to play the whole game, each and every campaign. When a German player can claim to be able to fold spindle and mutilate his opponent in every campaign, then they are indeed a master. Anyone can play Germany between 39 and 40. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 "Anyone can play Germany between 39 and 40." You are referring to the campaigns that come with the game.....the "customs" solve the imbalance issues and believe it or not I can think of two that actually have historical relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
it's Les Posted October 21, 2004 Share Posted October 21, 2004 Partially agree with you Sea Monkey. Historically the Germans had all the cards on day one, and they enjoyed a lot of stomping as a result. Any game that models history worth a darn, will inevitably do just that. The thing is, if you mangle your starting position and bungle your opening turns, yep, by 1941 you are looking at "why bother" syndrome. But that is what bugs me. We have a lot of people that actually WON'T willingly consider the standard post 41 campaigns as "interesting" due to the player not being able to beat the tar out of history in an ahistorical fashion first. The "I can do it better" attitude is not uncommon in a lot of grand strategy designs. The best wargames I have ever played, rarely were based off of a 39 optimum starting position. My most lopsided win was actually as the British in Malaya. My opponent must have made all the most impossibly bad moves possible too. The game based British "victory" off of how well you performed while losing. I actually feated the Japanese force though hehe. In the 39 Campaign, the German playing user has basically woefully unprepared allies and minors to pound on. That's the way it actually was. By 41 though, you better have you act properly in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeaMonkey Posted October 21, 2004 Author Share Posted October 21, 2004 In agreement Les, actually that may be why SC is so popular from the Fall Weiss campaign, "The ability to do better than History". I must say I was originally attracted to the same "What If" cliche. Now, though, I find myself playing campaigns that are skewed to one side or the other and take an historical perspective in that they start with the German "stomp" and end with the Allied victory. The Axis player can still win, but he must be highly competent, and have some research luck, Lord save him if he makes a mistake. I find myself taking either side(Hotseat)/(PBEM) and playing against myself....especially "Sphinx" since the game "hangs in the balance" for many moves until late into 43. And after all its not whether you win or lose....either way SC is still a blast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts