High Command

[mwenek]

Hey, do any of you guys remember that old favorite High Command?

I remember spending hours and days trying all variants against the crappy AI opponents.

I never lost the lust for the hex counters.

thanks to Hubert for coding this one!

Anyone else have fond memories of that game?

[ October 07, 2002, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: mwenek ]

[Geordie Irish]

I remember being pleased with myself for tracking down a copy for £15. Only a few months later it was available in a compilation with several other wargames for less!! Now it is available free. Anyone know if Hicom for Windows will ever be made?

[Zeres]

Found this on the Colorado Computer Creations site

High Command

High Command was originally released by CCC, and a later version was released by 360 Pacific. 360 Pacific filed for bankruptcy. High Command has been re-released in a collection of classic wargames. High Command is a strategic game which encompasses all of the events leading up to and through WWII. For more information, check out a High Command fan's site. Look for a Windows compatible version of High Command to appear in the future!

[Zeres]

Apparently SSI has made it available as part of a 'definative war game" collection....It looks very cool....I'm still trying to find out if you can play it on windows...Did you guys play it? how did it stack up against Strategic Command?

[mwenek]

Actually, I have a good working set of High Command disks. It is a DOS game, but I can run it just fine in WinXP.

As to how it stacks up to SC...

Well, the scale is smaller, and there are more and varied units. I think that is why the AI stunk so badly. The AI in SC can handle what is offered it better.

Against another human player, I think High Command compares well with SC. No offense of course! I own both.

And we are talking about being able to reconstitute units by combining corps and armies in High Command. Wish we had that in SC.

Comments guys?

[Zeres]

Ah the bane of all strategic War gamers....Computer AI....I was thinking there might be a WWII strategy treasure out there that I didn't know about that would work on my Win 98. I downloaded Clash of Steel and tried to run it from Dos but my config didn't like it and it messed me up bad. I'm not going to screw around with Dos anymore with this computer. I played Storm across Europe on my old Amiga when I was a teenager. What else is out there really? Are there any other Windows conversions?

[Morten Kay]

I have very fond memories of Third Reich. And now I have found my old CD with, but it all it do now is crash :mad: . Prob. because of my windows xp do any one of you have a solution for that problem?

/Morten

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by Morten Kay:

I have very fond memories of Third Reich. And now I have found my old CD with, but it all it do now is crash :mad: . Prob. because of my windows xp do any one of you have a solution for that problem?

/Morten

I have third riech pc on cdrom. My computer is running windows 98, not xp. I dont claim to understand the innerworkins of software - but I do know I cannot get the program to run inside windows - it only runs if I shut down to dos and run it through there. Once I do that I dont have any problems. Also there is a patch for the game that fixes some of the bugs from previous versions.

[Rastan]

mwenek,

how did you get HC to run on XP? I've tried everything I could think of and it still won't run.

[dgaad]

High Command suffered from extremely poor AI, although the game was the best operational design for the subject.

It also suffered from flawed implementation, so it does not bear out comparison in Human-Human mode either.

I actually sat down and played a face to face game with a good friend of mine. I think one of us watched a war movie while the other took their turn. We happened to be rooming at the time, so we had plenty of ftf time. He played the Germans.

As might be expected, France fell, as I recall it was relatively normal and about the normal time (summer of 1940). With the following major exception :

- At the time France fell, indeed on the very turn, I had substantial British forces in France which I was in the process of evacuating. To perform the evacuation, I had about 1/3 of the Home Fleet in a coastal hex in France, part of which was also performing a shore bombardment in an adjacent hex.

So, France surrenders. For some reason, the game treated the British naval units in the coastal hex of France as French naval units, and they were apportioned off in the usual Vichy way. Meaning, I lost about 1/3 of my fleet. Gone. Disappeared. No combat.

My friend and I discussed the situation, and agreed to play on.

The first thing I needed to do was consolidate all remaining fleet elements, which I did. My friend launched an invasion where I happened to be doing this (near Rosyth), which got through the entire British fleet. His troops landed and took out the Marines unit I had there, and captured Rosyth. I don't have a quarrel with this as some kind of implementation problem. It was ballsy play on the part of my friend, combined with some good luck on his part.

Again, however, I decided to play on.

Within a few turns, however, some really stupid things began happening, which included the mystical re-deployment of some of my units to somewhere near Armenia where they could not be retrieved.

I never played the game again. The fleet surrender and mystical redeployment were indicative of very sloppy coding and quality control, bad testing, etc. The fact that 360 filed bankruptcy later only reinforced that opinion.

As a game design, High Command could and should be re-examined and cleaned up a bit for re-release. It beats all other games on the topic hands down, including this one. If only it could have had better AI and clean coding, I'd probably still be playing it.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Please tell me you are not thinking "fondly" of playing Computer Third Reich!!!!

I use that game as a bench mark of how to ruin a classic board game.

It was the title that claimed bottom of the barrel until they made that piece of garbage thinly disguised as Squad Leader recently.

[ArmenianBoy]

I have to agree that the release of the computer version of 'Third Reich' was a travesty. If that game had been released by Russian design group, they would have been all shot :mad: ! The game never worked right and had tons of bugs even as a production release, guess they never heard of alpha/beta testing?

This also assisted in the demise of the Avalon Hill computer games division and Avalon Hill as a whole probably. Part of it was saved and bought up by Hasbro Games.

[dougmangin]

Originally posted by ArmenianBoy:

I have to agree that the release of the computer version of 'Third Reich' was a travesty. If that game had been released by Russian design group, they would have been all shot :mad: ! The game never worked right and had tons of bugs even as a production release, guess they never heard of alpha/beta testing?

This also assisted in the demise of the Avalon Hill computer games division and Avalon Hill as a whole probably. Part of it was saved and bought up by Hasbro Games.

It seems I may be the only one posting here who has no background in board games. I have not played any of the games that have been mentioned here or in other posts. So I cannot say what the computer version of 3r was in comparision to the board game. And I will admit the computer version can at times have some very frustrating bugs in it. But after I downloaded the patch I havent had any problems with it. And there are aspects of the game which, in my humble opinion, are far more fun than the comparable aspects in SC.

For example strategic warefare in 3r may be nothing but investing and a number showing up - but at least it does give somewhat an accurate weight to the value of uboats and strategic bombing. Germany can, as they did in reality, almost break Britains ability to fight on.

Also there is the freaking OPTION of intercepting fleets. Air power does not have to be an all or nothing thing - whereas in sc if you dont have the numbers, experience, or tech levels - air fleets are nothing but a nuisance and drain on your mpps.

Also there are limits on the number of units and redeployment. All of these may be included in the board game, I dont know. Perhaps it is a fantastic game that was ruined by the computer version - but I enjoy the game, so I suppose ignorance is bliss. And there are things that can be learned and taken from the pc game and perhaps used to improve SC.

[Zeres]

Great thread guys. I have played all those games and in my opinion Strategic Command plays more like the board game Axis and Allies Europe than anything else. It's the exact same scope with just a little more detail with regards to unit variations and of course in SC you have at least nominal control over strategic element of combat. just a question...When your playing a WWII strategy game.... do you find it more enjoyable to have detailed (divisional, serious variety of unit types) treatment of the war( like third reich, high command) or more abstracted ( like axis and allies )? To me SC falls in the middle. I personally don't like to get bogged down in the details when your dealing with a subject on such a huge scale. So the scale of SC is quite nice and there hasn't really been much like it except Storm Across Europe.

[dgaad]

You guys may or may not be aware of a game called "Clash of Steel".

COS was VERY similar to SC in many ways, so much so that I wonder if Battlefront did not purchase the code and use it to develop SC. The game scale was similar in both geography and unit size. The unit types were also very similar, but SC bifurcates the air fleets into tactical and bomber types, and also includes things like rocket detachments.

The research scheme is also very similar; you had to buy research "bulbs" that had a continuous improving effect over time, and in areas very similar, again, to SC. The effect of improvements in technology was to increase the combat power of the unit, so that a tank unit that started out with the numeral 4 as representation of its combat strength in 1940, could easily wind up with a representation of 12 or 14 by 1944.

Economic symbology and design was also very similar in COS to SC.

Options were also similar.

There were also HQs with named commanders that functioned as sources of supply as well as having a tactical effect (increasing the combat strength rating of units), almost exactly like SC again.

I played this game very much and enjoyed it very much. I believe it came out around 1993, and was developed in Germany. I believe SSI released it. I've played it as recently as a couple of years ago.

In the original release, however, the file save routine had a flaw that wound up corrupting hard drives. Very bad. The 1.01 patch fixed it, but people by then, some of whom had lost entire hard drives, were very much turned off. I managed to notice and catch that error before any damage was serious on my machine, and resumed playing once the patch came out.

[Zeres]

Never played it but I'm aware of it. I've tried to download it a couple times. BEWARE....it wreaked havoc on my Windows system when I tried to load from DOS. Others have had more success. Thank god (Hubert!) for SC though because it's so stable and bug- free and they have made a commitment to improve the game. This game is already good but imagine how much better a year from now!!!!

[dgaad]

Originally posted by Zeres:

Never played it but I'm aware of it. I've tried to download it a couple times. BEWARE....it wreaked havoc on my Windows system when I tried to load from DOS. Others have had more success. Thank god (Hubert!) for SC though because it's so stable and bug- free and they have made a commitment to improve the game. This game is already good but imagine how much better a year from now!!!!

As I said, this is a known issue with COS which was fixed in the patch.

[HICOM]

Hi folks. Anyone want to agree that the folks at Battlefront.com took a great game like High Command:1939-45 and fixed most of what was broken?

Strategic Command (with its patch) has "real" PBEM, all units can coordinate attack at once, subs can dive from attack (that one is from Axis and Allies:Iron Blitz!), the production process is thankfully simplified, units in open hexes can be redeployed, and more!

However, I've noticed a few exceptions I hope will be addressed in later releases:

1. The small map in the upper-right of the screen should show you control zones at a glance.

2. All countries' geography should be accurately depicted and drawn, as well as possible. Low Countries? What if I want to destroy Luxembourg, or Holland alone??

3. Units completely surrounded should be prevented from replenishing themselves. You could make a rule that any nearby air units could be used to end their operational ability for that turn and "partially resupply by air" for one unit, but that's about it. If I surround you, and you cannot break out in your turn, then you don't get to rebuild yourself!

4. If I conquer France and I control ALL hexes, there should be no Vichy France carved out of CONQUERED French territory in France. I tested this by waiting until every other hex was taken before I knocked out Paris, and Vichy France was STILL created in France! North Africa alone is fine, but not conquered territory!

5. What is with land units attacking adjacent naval units? Are we to believe these are mobile engineers who somehow carry huge siege guns in the hope they'll see a destroyer off the coast to shoot at? Ridiculous! Port cities should be able to "shoot at" adjacent enemy naval units somehow, but not the way it is now. (and how long does it take to produce an entrenchment benefit? I think only a certain level of entrenchment, maybe 5 or higher, should be considered to have "naval guns" installed, and only while they don't move!

6. For a 60 meg game, I expected more "payoff" in terms of multimedia. You know... the stuff that makes the game feel more like a real historical simulation. Real sound bites (like national anthems... I loved this!) from historical leaders, archive video clips, and any kind of political activity that add realism. High Command was as bare-bones in this department as is Strategic Command, and could be installed with 2 floppy diskettes!

7. The scenario editor is nice... (had High Command seen its editor ever produced, it would have been greater!)... but it could use some tweaking. I wanted to create fantasy setups like a WW1 scenario (the old Austro-Hungarian empire!). I also don't like that the UK, France, Germany, and Poland have to either be Allied, or conquered. I know those are the shell rules for the 1939 campaign, but I'd like to start with just a Germany and a free hand in Europe. Also... borders don't change, but colored control does. How about modifying the black-lined borders, too. It is a small aesthetic improvement, but it would help!

Overall, I am happy with Strategic Command, but honestly, High Command seems more "real" when it is played human-human (yes, all its bugs aside... and I know about them!) than does Strategic Command, human-to-human. I think the inaccurate large map appearance and the limited "strategic-view" map severely detract from the realism effect, as does the lack of real political and diplomatic options/variances.

Thanks for reading!

--HICOM

[mwenek]

HICOM you should change your name. You know that is one of the old and revered games we talk about quite a bit. You are a bit presumptuous in taking it for your own.

I think the guys will agree with me.

As to your opines...

I agree with the thumb map needing to display control zones at a glance.

As to having the choice of France, etc., being Axis OR Allied powers. Well, I think Hubert wanted to make WWII flexible but he is not really creating "Alternate Universes" here.

That is what other games do.

[HICOM]

Originally posted by dgaad:

High Command suffered from extremely poor AI, although the game was the best operational design for the subject.

Weak, yes. It will always attack with equal strength, even if it has overwhelming strength laying about. The best way around this was to launch the game with a command line modifier, such as creating 2 to 1, 10 to 1, 15 to 1 odds against you, etc. Then, you really had to coordinate your attacks to see wins!

In all fairness, High Command's AI was overburdened, and (while admirable for what it had to deal with) simply not able to create really offensive scenarios. I think the production phase (not that I am a fan of the "phases" concept) should have been much simpler. Who really plays this game to have "fun" transporting oil and building units? We play the game to fight and conquer, not stockpile!!

It is best played human-human.

It also suffered from flawed implementation, so it does not bear out comparison in Human-Human mode either.

[HICOM]

Originally posted by mwenek:

HICOM you should change your name. You know that is one of the old and revered games we talk about quite a bit. You are a bit presumptuous in taking it for your own.

I think the guys will agree with me.

As to your opines...

I agree with the thumb map needing to display control zones at a glance.

As to having the choice of France, etc., being Axis OR Allied powers. Well, I think Hubert wanted to make WWII flexible but he is not really creating "Alternate Universes" here.

That is what other games do.

It is nice to hear someone speak with reverence (even a little) in regards to High Command. I rarely ever see any reference made to it on websites, bulletin boards, wargamer sites, etc. I always hear about the crappy Third Reich PC, and COS, but I rarely ever read anywhere (magazines included) that anyone even knew High Command was released, excepting the few.

This makes me react with astonishment to hear an opinion that it was so well-received or well remembered anywhere (the posts I've read on this board aren't many, and aren't like described). But, this is an opinion.

And in regards to the comment "what other games do"... exactly WHAT other game, now?? If I hear Axis and Allies: Iron Blitz, I am going to fall down laughing. <chuckle>

As far as my nick is concerned... don't try to tell me what screen name to use. That IS being presumptuous.

--HICOM

[mwenek]

Hmmm, never thought I was all that well-thought-out

A&A Iron Blitz is/was a joke.

Sort of like sitting down to an old-fsahoined board game of Axis and Allies and having the long-haired kid/smelly D&D wanna-be guy tell you he likes to play "house rules"

You know... alternate starting points, paratroops, etc. All 'cause he can't win by the written rules against another human being.

I'll tell you guys what i think (if I may).

It all comes down to single player replayability these days. If Hubert's AI wasn't able to give the decent game it does, this game would go the way of HICOM and all the rest.

Now, HICOM against another human WAS fun, but took about a week to play all the way through via hotseat play.

[SixthArmy]

I think Iron Blitz is ok. It has some bugs and a clever player can weasle around some of the rules (ie-land a fighter in territory just conquered), but all in all I like it. Of course anyone playing against the AI is going to be very dissapointed. Me and my Dad played the board game for years. Now we can sit and play some hotseat w/out having to set up all the pieces, roll dice, keep track of production, do general math, or any other unpleasantries associated w/ the board version.

[Zeres]

Oh come on man...Don't diss Axis and Allies out of hand like that. The board game was the introduction to strategy games for thousands of people. Granted it's a beer and pretzles game but what a great place to start for people new to the Genre. And what's wrong with being a snot nosed kid who likes D&D? I was one of those kids ( nothing to be proud of to be sure What's the difference between a kid like that and a snot nosed kid playing solitaire Third Reich because he can't find anyone that wants to play with him? I'll tell you, the kid playing Axis and Allies can find someone to play!

[CPROFITT]

Yes, that was the game I was trying to remember just a few minutes ago. Good game.