ConsimWorld Discussion Board Review

[sogard]

I posted the following after a fellow gamer on the ConsimWorld Discussion Board asked for opinion on whether or not he should purchase SC:

STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is a fun game. One can have alot of amusement with it as you learn it because the AI is respectable enough to make crushing it interesting. However, the game is one that is definately made by and for computer geeks (and I use the term "computer geek" in a nice way). It's resemblance to WW II is only recognizeable at the beginning of any scenario (because they are historical starts with appropriate unit placement) and becomes more and more out of whack as the game progresses until it ends in 1946.

The game is VERY pro-Axis. I suspect this is so because it was designed with the knowledge that most players would play the Axis so they could play it out through the course of the war and the vast majority of games are played solo against the AI. The ALLIES can be somewhat competitive in hotseat and pbem play (only kind supported until tcp/ip is implemented); but, only by doing some very counter intuitive things. This means if you approach the game from a historical perspective and your opponant is a good computer geek who loves disbanding the French fleet to create income to build other units, or deploying 12 - 15 Luftwaffe Air Fleets in the campaign against Russia, you are going to get frustrated rather quickly. There is no limitation on the number of units any country can build in the game other than a very simplistic economic model which produces Military Production Points (MPPs) based upon ownership of cities and resource hexes. The Axis economy is rather ahistorical; but, this is something that won't bother a gamer who wants to play a rather clever game badly enough.

Thus, I do recommend the game for someone who wants a vaguely historical game on WW II which is fun to learn and can be amusing with hotseat and pbem play. When tcp/ip play is implemented, I think SC will get another boost in sales as it will definately appeal to the beer and pretzels crowd. The only real issue that I find annoying is that the game could have been so much more. It is obviously a game designed by a very good programmer which owes much to the inspiration of CLASH OF STEEL.

I hope that SC will continue to be improved through patches and design tweaks so that the finished product will appeal more to the historical gamer rather than just the panzer commander wannabee crowd (if you want to see what I mean, pop onto the well supported BattleFront Strategic Command discussion board and read the names of the posters). The knowledge of the basic history may be lacking; but, they sure do enjoy the drive in their panzer through Europe.

So, I would give STRATEGIC COMMAND an A for clever and innovative computer programming; a B- for a game that is distincly pro-Axis; and a C- for historical accuracy. Overall, the game gets a B- and a thumbs up from me because in the final analysis, it is alot of fun to play and worth the initial $25 investment.

But, I do dream about the game that could have been and still could be if more attention is paid to game design and getting the history right. I just have the feeling that the playtesting done on the game prior to release was limited to a very small group dominated by computer gamers who did not care much for historical detail and limitations. The good news is that much of this could be fixed by the game designer through a patch if he wants to. The game designer should get kudos though for implementing tcp/ip when that happens.

And, after a thank you by the gamer who had requested opinion on SC I followed up with:

Your welcome Ken and even though I rather like the game; I gave as honest and fair a review of the game as possible. If you like pbem games, STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) works flawlessly. I get one to three turns done every day in the three current pbem games that I have going and have never had any kind of a serious hitch develop other than forgetting to attach the proper file to the email. 8^)

The BattleFront site also supports the game in a most admirable fashion along with an opponant finders folder which makes finding an opponant for pbem very easy

[ October 16, 2002, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[pzgndr]

The only real issue that I find annoying is that the game could have been so much more.

Hey, the same could have been said about Third Reich when it was first released in 1974. Here we are almost 3 decades later and A3R/Rising Sun/Global War 2000 is still being tweaked. And WiF has gone through numerous expansion modules and rules editions since it was released.

Yeah, the game mighta coulda shoulda been playtested to hell and back and released in a more mature form months or years from now. But we have it today for $25, it plays fairly well despite some obvious shortcomings, and we have a game designer receptive to our concerns and suggestions. That sir is a good deal.

[sogard]

Hey there Bill. I gave STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) a thumbs up recommendation and recommended a buy. The only thing I would feel badly about with that recommendation is someone who really wanted a reasonably accurate game on WW II. Accuracy is not a strong suit for SC; but, fun sure is even though game balance remains an issue.

As long as the buyer understands that, no problem.

[dgaad]

The assessement of the reviewer, while unkind in some aspects, is right on target with respect to game balance, and historical and economic accuracy, unfortunately.

[Ancient One]

I think that's a very good review sogard.

[Guest Mike]

This guy wrote exactly what I meant when I said the game was simplistic a few weeks ago - excellent review, and right on he button in terms of strengths and weaknesses for my tastes.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

I think his review was acceptable.

After all, we are talking about a review correct?

One player's feelings.

As long as he gave an honest appraisal what more can be asked.

20 reviews, and I bet all 20 would look different too eh.

I would probably have said something similar.

[EB.]

I disagree. The grade for Strategic Command is surely A+. This is no exaggeration. Only Europa Universalis and Clash of Steel are better.

Without doubt, it is worth $25. I say that it is worth $100 in fact. I have literally hundreds of computer games, so I am well qualified to say.

Truly excellent work which deserves the highest praise. When I read reviews criticizing the game overall (as opposed to offering helpful suggestions for improvement), then I mark that person or medium as an enemy. An enemy indeed.

One of my chief complaints about the game is that I did not even know about it until somebody from the Europa Universalis / Hearts of Iron forum told me about it. You capitalists need to market this stuff better. In a socialist country, we would simply make all of our military students play the game as supplement to first year military history classes--good idea for the future. Maybe we will work out some royalties arrangement for you.

[Hubert Cater]

Very glad to hear it was recommended as a buy, although I do take exception to "computer geek"

Hubert

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Very glad to hear it was recommended as a buy, although I do take exception to "computer geek"

Hubert

I take exception to your taking exception to being a computer geek. If you aren't a geek than what am I? What is EB?

[sogard]

Originally posted by EB.:

I disagree. The grade for Strategic Command is surely A+. This is no exaggeration. Only Europa Universalis and Clash of Steel are better.

Without doubt, it is worth $25. I say that it is worth $100 in fact. I have literally hundreds of computer games, so I am well qualified to say.

Truly excellent work which deserves the highest praise. When I read reviews criticizing the game overall (as opposed to offering helpful suggestions for improvement), then I mark that person or medium as an enemy. An enemy indeed.

One of my chief complaints about the game is that I did not even know about it until somebody from the Europa Universalis / Hearts of Iron forum told me about it. You capitalists need to market this stuff better. In a socialist country, we would simply make all of our military students play the game as supplement to first year military history classes--good idea for the future. Maybe we will work out some royalties arrangement for you.

Honest and accurate criticisim is not an enemy of anyone EB. It is only through a process of honest evaluation that real improvement and qualitative change occurs. I do agree that criticisim that offers nothing other than negative opinion does not advance any subject; but, to ignore the fact that something is not working right is ultimately self destructive. But then, I am sure that you are familiar with this process as someone you witnessed such failure from inside the old Soviet block.

[ October 17, 2002, 09:00 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[pzgndr]

It is only through a process of honest evaluation that real improvement and qualitative change occurs.

This is true. My earlier post was not a criticism of your review, which I agree is a fair assessment of the game in its current state. I meant only to put SC in proper perspective with the other games which took years to mature. SC is sufficiently different with its Panzer General-style combat system and its MPP resource system that growing pains should be expected.

Change tends to be a slow and painful process. I had concerns from the very beginning about the variable-length turns (ie, no normalized production on a per-month or per-season basis?), no seasonal effects (no Russian winter??), and a few other issues, and I'm still waiting to find out what the future may hold. Over time I've come to enjoy the game for what it is and to be patient for change to happen. Real improvement will happen eventually.

[Hubert Cater]

Agreed Bill and Sogard, I don't think anyone or anything is perfect and there is always room for improvement. Criticisms, feedback are always welcome. In the end I am bound to agree with some points and disagree with others, but without them and without a bit of humility and some eye opening, games such as these will never be destined for refinement and/or overall improvment.

Now if I can only speed the whole process up and get these improvements to everyone sooner

Hubert

[ October 17, 2002, 10:08 AM: Message edited by: Hubert Cater ]

[sogard]

Originally posted by Hubert Cater:

Agreed Bill and Sogard, I don't think anyone or anything is perfect and there is always room for improvement. Criticisms, feedback are always welcome. In the end I am bound to agree with some points and disagree with others, but without them and without a bit of humility and some eye opening, games such as these will never be destined for refinement and/or overall improvment.

Now if I can only speed the whole process up and get these improvements to everyone sooner

Hubert

And, that is the attitude that will produce the best game in the long run.

One of the things that I have been impressed with in the military is the use of after action reports to critique an exercise. I have talked to a number of folks who have just been shredded by this process; but, if one can take it as positive reinforcement, it can make whatever you are doing better. It does require some very tough and thick skin; but, the key is to use your own analysis and take from it anything that you think is valid. My hat is off to Hubert for suffering, what I am sure, has been many unfair slings and arrows.

Now, back to the salt mine Hubert! Can't wait until tcp/ip permits me to complain anew about how my opponant is tearing me apart by ahistorical and gamey means...

[ October 17, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[EB.]

Okay, please don't misunderstand--SC can stand a bit of improvement, and criticisms are always good for this improvement.

But I must say that SC still deserves an A+ grade.

I base this upon all of the other games that have been created over the past 20 years or so. This is one of the best. Who cares if it still needs SOME improvement. This is still super-high-quality stuff.

Say that you are a professor and have 200 students in a class. What grade do you give to the top five students in that class? It better be A+ or something is wrong with your standards.

[JerseyJohn]

I have to say first that I enjoy SC as a game.

Since everyone's advancing thoughts on how to make it more realistic, I'll throw in some of my own --

Speaking for those who want to play against a good AI --

In DOS I liked the look and approach of HiCOM but felt it was tedius to play, slow moving, and the AI couldn't make sensible decisions. Also, there were too many "routine tasks" the human player had to perform, too many little things that had to be done every single turn -- supposedly the computer could handle most of them, but who wanted the AI's decisions!

Also in DOS, Clash of Steel flowed well and the AI put up a better fight, also it threw an occaisional surprise. There were details about CLASH I didn't care for but they were minor, the main thing I didn't like was the no stacking rule. Without stacking you suddenly have units backed up half way into a country from it's border! Also it forced many bizarre tactical decisions when units blocked each other's movement. Surely in a hex representing fifty or sixty square miles there's room for more than a single corps!

SC, as mentioned by others, is similar to Clash. Again, I think the lack of stacking is a flaw. The AI, while much better than that of other programs, seems to have some odd habits, like heavily defending Northern England and leaving the south open and London with a single corps. Why make London a sacrificial lamb?

The game tactic appears to be counterattack -- let the landing fleet assemble, then cut it to shreds with naval units brought south, etc., I don't think that has much chance of success. Especially with air fleets in Northern France.

After recovering from Dunkirk, the British were quick to defend the coastal areas along the channel coast. I think this is the only way to go. Unfortunately, if the Axis has a powerful Luftwaffe in Northern France, the defending British units will pay a heavy price, especially since it's difficult for england to match air fleets with the Axis.

Which is another point -- the game is very air oriented. Perhaps this is justified. Historically it's accurate to say the Axis dominated the first few years, when they controlled the skies and the Allies dominated the next few years, when they took over control of the skies. It was less critical on the Russian front, though even there the same premise is applicable.

If I had to choose between too much or too little air power I'd go with too much; in the end --and in too many cases before the end-- it was air power that decided campaigns and battles on both land and sea.

The immediate fulfillment of production -- I need a battleship, just plunder some small fry, pay the production cost, and your BB will magically appear next week! -- is a problem.

As is, the Axis, after taking France, can begin building a powerful fleet and, using air units along the coast and U-Boats to whittle the Royal Navy down, can dominate the sea within a fairly short time.

A production schedule would do much to prevent this. It takes a long time to build capital ships. Maybe some sort of compromise can be reached -- Germany conquers France and there are X number of keels in place in French ports set by the French Navy before it's ouster; capital ships built on them will be completed more quickly, etc.

No matter how you handle German and Italian aircraft carriers the historical purists will never be satisfied. How do either of those countries suddenly produce trained aviators and officers who know how to properly handle carriers at sea? It took twenty years for England, Japan and the United States to evolve those techniques, neither Germany nor Italy would have developed them right away.

A related minor point nobody else seems too concerned about; if Germany goes from two or three naval units to ten or more -- how did they manage to train so many crews so quickly!

Having said all that, as stated earlier, I admit to really liking SC. It's in a mid-range somewhere with the nod toward playability and the scenario editor gives it added possibilities.

It isn't the WWII strategy game the buffs (including myself) have been waiting for, but in many ways it's a step in the right direction.

Like everyone else I look forward to the next improved effort and hope to see things like stacking, the Russian Winter, some real British activity in the Mediteranean, Strategic movement around the cape, and a production schedule.

I don't think there's any question about it's being worth the cost.

[ October 21, 2002, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]