High Command

[mwenek]

No, No, Zeres. I meant those guys who NEVER grow up properly. Maybe you have never attended GENCON in Milwaukee.

If so, you know of whom I speak. No offense of course. I have two boxed sets of Axis and Allies in the closet.

[Zeres]

I'm not offended. Let's face it....We're all geeks .

[Yohan]

Hey Hicom,

You must be kidding speaking in reverence about High Command. It was one of the poorest wargames ever seen. Great map and it ends there.

[Ancient One]

Originally posted by Yohan:

Hey Hicom,

You must be kidding speaking in reverence about High Command. It was one of the poorest wargames ever seen. Great map and it ends there.

You can say that again, it's basically unplayable as is.

[mwenek]

Hi all.

This post is for those few of us who for some unknown reason try to play High Command once in a while. Hey, it reminds us how great Hubert's game is!

To get High Command to work in WinXP, you have to do the following:

Go to the Windows directory.

Right-click and edit the memory tab of the

_default (default MS DOS icon) icon and change to allow max memory.

That should allow one to play High Command in the default Command Prompt window.

Hope that helps

[JerseyJohn]

Regarding HiCom, Clash of Steel and the ghost of strategy board games past --

The guy who never played any of the board versions missed a lot of good times -- stacking cardboard cutouts (usually three to a hex), finding ways to stick a fingernail between several stacks only to have the whole front scatter all over the place and the occaisional leaping cat landing on the gameboard, displacing dozens of pieces and expecting affection!

The best of them were from Avolon Hill -- including a very complicated game on the WW I Western Front -- unfortunately it had so many special rules it was almost unplayable. Also, like most of the others, it needed a fog of war element that was virtually impossible in a board game.

The Avalon Hill games I liked best were:

D-Day, which was the entire campaign in France on a Division level with a few odd brigade units. Also included were scores of unit counters, like HQs, that had no function in the game as originally originally designed (circa 1962) but the rules kept evolving through Avalon Hill itself so, by the late seventies, everything had a purpose and the Germans had things like V-rocket sites to induce campaigns into the low countries instesd of toward the central Rhine. A later refined version was called Fortress Europa (?) which was very similar and more detailed, it was probably very good but by then I wasn't playing board games any longer.

Stalingrad was a corps version of the Russian front that went from Barbarossa thru 1943. It was a lot of fun but, like D-Day and all the others, used a combat results table and a single die throw that made it all or nothing (actually, Def Retreat, Att Retreat, Def Eliminated, Att eliminated--varying with the odds of attack, usually from 1-3 to 6-1) you'd have a multi-hex battle going and would roll the wrong number and wham! You'd lose 3 stacks of attacking corps (9 total!) while your opponent lost nothing, what's more, his units were full stregnth and unfazed by the titanic battle they'd just fought! turn ends, downtrodden defender suddenly marches through the vacated hexes, and wins the game. And, of course, the opposite for att victories.

Along the way there was always the task of watching for intentional or unintentional rule bending by one's opponent (or oneself if oneself was philosophical enough to recognize it) -- one of the guys I played against had a tendency to interpret terrain to his optimal advantage -- a smear of jelly changed an ocean square to forest, till later on, when he needed an ocean square again and he'd say, "Hey, that's jelly!"

I thought most of the flaws could have been taken care of with computer technology. In fact, during the sixties the big fantasy was being able to play one of those games through a mainframe and have all the details cleaned up, have fatigue in units and variable stregnths through combat and marches, etc instead of the notorious Defender or Attacker elimated.

But when home computers came along, instead of turning their board games into computer games Avalon Hill started making entirely different DOS creations that I, for one, truely hated.

Among the things I didn't like about the DOS Third Reich was the way the rules hinted at how the game was supposed to be played. Hints were in there like, hey German, the computer won't defend all of the maginot line, we don't know why, but hit it in the corner! Also, on one page it actually said the Germans can't win but the thing is to see how long they could hold out, etc. -- I hated it.

Then there was the initial option of defending against Poland while invading Yugoslavia instead and hitting Poland later to make optimum use of production points; utilize flip-flops, etc. -- what drek! That was all just game mechanics, not replaying history --If Poland weren't about to be attacked it wouldn't even be in the war -- nor would England nor France and where was Yugoslavia an issue at all in Sept 1939?

It seemed to me that Third Reich was a game where play was dictated by the rules and the programmers who existed in an alternate universe. Maybe I'm being too harsh but I remember feeling disgusted that such a nicely produced project was so full of nonsense.

Hicom and Clash were different matters entirely.

First, regarding playing these things on your computer. I kept my old Windows 3.1 computer and use it now with two DOS boot disks, one for optimum play without a CD-ROM and the other with a CD-ROM. Due to memory requirements -- there are two different types in DOS -- I can't get either Clash or HICOM to run properly unless they have all the damn memory for their own uses.

Other games and programs seem to play best on Pentium II machines but not on Windows xp home edition, so I kept that machine as well and find things like Lords of the Realm run better on the recent relic than on the infinitely faster Pentium IV so instrumental in my most recent financial ruin!

In terms of actual play:

Clash of Steel is extremely similar to SC in it's play flow, complete lack of stacking, etc., but varies in a number of important aspects.

The HQ units are army groups that have a powerful attack factor in addition to the supply capability already mentioned. Italy has an army group as well but it doesn't function very well.

Tactical play is slightly different, a defending unit can be attacked by several attackers simultaneously (assaulted) in addition to being struck by any or all of them individually.

Research in Clash is generally similar to SC except units of research (lightbulbs) start out cheap (8 pts) and become progressively more expensive (something like 24 at the limit). Also, they could only be arranged in configurations of 1, 3, 6 or 10.

Movement in both HiCom and Clash are on a hex by hex basis instead of high-lighted areas; I find both systems acceptable but prefer the first, in the second you lose things like partial hexes (most noticable in North Africa!).

Other land units are armies and corps. They are similar to the ones in SC except in Clash armies are much more powerful.

All sides are limited to a small number of air units, Britain 2, Italy 2, Germany 4, Russia 3, US 3, something along those lines. Strategic bombing is done abstractly. It's possible for there to be a lull in the action where the human player has no enemy (you can defeat Britain first, then mass for an attack on Russia in the unlikely event Russia hasn't started a pre-emptive war against you) and, with no enemy, you're still being bombed by these ghost units that are operating, presumably, from outter space -- I find that absurd, of course.

All sides have a limited number of warships. Naval operations are conducted on a seperate window through a procedure I won't go into because it would take another couple of pages. The naval warfare and invasion aspect have good and bad points. Once lost, battleships, aircraft carriers and subs can not be replaced!

Production is done according to a schedule -- it takes 9 turns or 18 months to build an aircraft carrier, 7 turns or 14 months to build a battleship, 10 turns for an air fleet, etc., the quickest being a corps, which takes only two turns. Units are of varrying expense.

The United States must deploy in England through a convoy system. If England is defeated or Liverpool captured, the Unites States stays home and broods.

Turns are in phases, the number of which vary according to the time of year. Sometimes, however, there are very long winter turns and short summer turns -- go figure!

Russian winter is very important and varies in it's effect on the Axis by a unit's distance east in Russia. A very successful Barbarossa might result in units near Rostov being frozen, brittle and unsupplied when the first Russian Winter appears.

There are numerous special rules but overall the game plays well and is enjoyable whether you play the Axis or the Allies.

There is no campaign editor and the scenarios themselves have inconsistencies. For example, if you start in 1939 as the Axis you'll find it impossible to build the units in 1940 that you would have been given had you chosen the French campain. The initial scenario should have had things like Manstein's army group, Bismark BB & the paratroopers set in the production table, which is done in later scenarios.

HiCom uses a very different approach. No unit sizes as such, only quantities of unit types in the same hex. Stacking is rampant, land, sea and air units can be stacked in the same hex, etc., a system that has numerous good points and numerous bad points. More stringent stacking limits seem to force greater strategic and tactical sophistication. On the other hand, it seems weird to have units sprawled out over half a country because only one can be placed on each hex -- I'm not sure which way is better.

In HiCom diplomacy is a factor (if you choose the option) and an Axis player can go from start to finish without ever actually going to war! Instead of fighting you can do your best to gain allies -- it's comparatively easy to get the USSR into the Axis and impossible to win over British or French sympathies. This makes for some interesting situations.

During the first few turns Poland can be invaded and the Ribbentrop treaty envoked where the country is split, etc.. This leads immediately to war with England and France and almost assures Spain's avoidence of joining the Axis later on. If the Axis invades Poland after December '39 it does so alone, gains the entire country after victory, doesn't cede the three (yes, in HiCom even places like Latvia and Luxemburg are distinct entities!)Baltic States to Russia, but still automatically fights Britain and France. Additionally, the USSR might join the allies.

The USSR is a special case because, if attacked without a declaration of war it's units have much less efficiency for the first seven months, after which they are at their normal levels. Which means, as the Axis, you don't want to have Russia declare war on you, in which case they are at full stregnth right from the start. A nice touch, in my humble opinion.

Countries can either be attacked to initiate war, in which case they usually start out surprised and diminished, or you can declare war on them, in which case they start out full stregnth. Declaring war is useful against the United States for those rare moments where things are just going along so smoothly that you simply have to get the world's strongest industrial nation on the other side -- just joking, of course. I have no idea why anyone would ever want to declare war instead simply attacking and getting an advantage.

Diplomatically you can put varying amounts of funds into getting a country into your camp -- some swing one way and some the other. Only Switzerland maintains true neutrality. It isn't unusual, for example, to see Spain join the Allies. A careless Axis player can even lose the loyalty of Rumania and Hungry if he doesn't actively seek their allegience.

There are too many special rules to go into; there's a merchant marine board that some would like and others would hate--I happen to like it.

other rules make the game more or less realistic and would be great if the AI were able to deal with even the basic complexities of play.

The game manual is redundant and far too long.

Combat as a combined arms operation can become complicated when attempting to use air units affectively. There are fighters, bombers and strategic bombers, on the ground there are infantry, marines, paratroopers, mechanized infantry and armored units -- also rockets and A-bombs if your research gets you there.

A nice touch is the way each unit type is affected by different terrain hexes; for example, armor is a terror on clear terrain but out of it's element in cities, which is why it pays to combine armored units with mechanized infantry which are better against air attack and takes advantage of different defensive rules.

There are many problems with HiCom. As mentioned by another contributor, the system itslef is too complicated for the computer to handle. A lot of tactical and strategic decision making is involved and the AI is not up to it. For example, with London about to fall the AI will launch a pea-brained campaign to take Bergen, Norway!

On a play basis, I found it possible with the initial units to successfully invade Poland and France at the same. The trick is skirting the Maginot line by traipsing through Luxemburg and rolling the French units through a flank attack -- an attack through the Low Countries isn't needed. The flaw, of course, is that Germany has enough troops on both it's east\west borders to do something like this.

As in Clash of Steel, units are produced on a schedule. Unlike Clash you can't see it, but there is a button during the production phase that allows veiwing of units under production; it doesn't take as long to make them, but there is strategic planning involved -- for example, in the opening months Germany has to decide whether he wants to use his shipbuilding capabilities for longterm units such as capital ships or short term, such as transports or merchant marines, etc..

At the start of war the Axis has to find a safe haven for it's merchant marine or they are immediately lost. Realistically they should be placed in the Baltic, but if the whim strikes you can fly your freightors to the Black Sea if you choose, or the Red Sea if you prefer that color, then relocate them some other time. In other words, you can put your merchant marine just about anywhere you want, which shouldn't be, but it isn't normally a big issue.

With the passage of time the units of non-hostile nations become upgraded, so a minor country attacked in late 43 will give greater resistance that it would have in early 1940. This is a good idea as it creates a sense of urgency for the aggressor state.

Meanwhile, as weapons improve with research existing units remain the same as they were. Only newly built units take advantage of new developments. This is a flaw, there should be an option to expend some funds and upgrade all your existing units, as is done in Clash of Steel. In SC the unit wide upgrade is automatic, even for ships at sea!

Research includes rockets and A-bombs. The economy must also be reinvested in and watched, and there are glitches in economies of conquered nations. For example, France, England and Russia, when conquered, gradually diminish in economic production till they're on a par with Denmark. Maybe that's realistic, I don't know, if it isn't a mistake it might represent what remains after corrupt nazi officials have finished with their personal plundering.

As mentioned a few times before, the AI has problems dueing it's part in all facets of the game. Also, I find it plays very slowly and requires a great deal of time and patience.

Both those DOS games are worth looking into, even now, as there are areas in each not covered in SC.

I think SC is a reasonable compromise between all the game systems so far produced. It isn't the ultimate word on the subject, but then I doubt we're going to see that for a very long time. A windows version of HiCom might come closer, supposedly it's been in the works, if so I'd hope it isn't just a windows adaptation but a truly revised version of a game with great potential and some very good ideas.

Hopefully, as SC evolves (to incorporate things like the Russian Winter!) it will encompass new aspects of realism. Meanwhile it's fun and, somehow, gets reasonably good historical results.

-- Regarding the topic of board games, does anyone remember Simulations Publications? They used to publish war games on paper maps. You could subscribe to them and receive a magazine each month with a complete and usually very good game inside.

They were in business from '71 or '72 thru the late eighties, perhaps not that long. The monthly magazine would have very interesting articles on the topic covered by the game.

They had one game, for example, with a map of the Ardennes and two campaigns; Guderian 1940 and the Battle of the Bulge. Another of their games had a large map of Central Europe and, with the pieces depicting infantry, cavalry & generals, had scenarios for all of Napoleon's campaigns from Austerlitz through 1809 -- I think it was called "Le Grande Armee."

With all these hundreds, perhaps thousands of excellent cardboard and paper games (Avalon Hill by itself must have had hundreds going back to the late fifties) you'd think there'd be some programming group that would gather them up and convert them, almost literally, into pc versions incorporating improvements such as fog of war, specific casualties instead a combat results tabe, etc.. and, of course, an AI player.

It seems improbable the original game designers would ask for too much compensation when their creations, at present, exist only in the memories of senile codgers like myself.

Also, I keep wondering if a computer version of Simulations Publications would be feasable. Wouldn't a new game each month with an electronic magazine as described above be interesting? As I remember it, Simulations Publications was also pretty economical.

It's highpoint came in '73 when they put out an Israel vs Egypt & Middle East game and a short time later war broke out -- the actual event was decided by a stranded Egyptian amphibeous operation on the Sainai, and was a prophetic main scenario of the game!

[ October 20, 2002, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[dgaad]

I once knew someone who worked for the Governor of California. This person discovered that there are quite a few people in government at the state and national levels who played and understood the implications of gaming, and a few who specifically had been SPI gamers and even designers in their youth.

[EB.]

Here are my general views on the main computer games dealing with strategic level of World War 2.

Axis and Allies: good only as an introduction to wargaming. Some rules were plain stupid, such as collecting for territories owned at the end of a turn instead of at the beginning. For example, if Soviets took Ukrainian SSR, they would collect 3 IPC's for it, and then if Germans took it right after that, then they too would collect 3 IPC's for it in the very same game turn--silly to think that a province being fought over can produce twice as much instead of the more realistic no production for that turn. Anyway, gameplay became too predictable and yet too quirky--too many huge battles fought between India and French Indochina. Plus, the attacker seemed to get too much of an advantage in the game. Don't get me wrong--the offensive is the key to all warfare, but we shouldn't get unrealistic about it. Also, economic power of the West was a bit exaggerated. Grade: C+

Clash of Steel--probably the best. Economic balance was great (Soviets strongest, US and Allies realistically weaker in production). Plus, economics were simple to use, and there were realistic delays for units to appear. Naval battle was abstracted but realistically balanced. One problem is that certain aspects of the war such as invasion of Denmark and Norway simply did not occur in the game even though they were on the map. Politpoints were a nice touch, but the computer always cheated like crazy--when I play Allies, Spain joins Axis easily, but when I play Axis, Spain NEVER joins Axis. AI was okay, but for a realistic game, you had to set the computer difficulty at the very highest. Best of all, you could play the Allies and Soviets separately, which of course is very realistic. Units had real names--good touch. Units could attack together against a single enemy (assault)--very good and realistic. Grade: A+, first in class

Strategic Command--great. Economic balance is perfect, economic system is easy to use. Units do not have real names--too bad. AI is ok, but for a realistic game, you have to play on computer at highest level. Units are not allowed to attack enemy together but must attack once at a time--a bit unrealistic. Big problem--cannot play Allies and Soviets separately but must play them together--unrealistic. Games seem to follow a realistic historical pattern without being overly predictable. Prettier map than COS. Units appear immediately instead of after some delay--mildly unrealistc. Grade: A+, 2nd in class

Third Reich: A corny old wargame which took too many hours of my youth. Far too gamey. BRP flip-flops: the stuff of wargamer nightmares. Had to have a law degree to understand the rules. Had to have an engineering degree to implement the rules. Unrealistic economic balance. Computer version was delayed, buggy, crashy and did nothing to improve the deficiencies of the board version. I mean, can you imagine COUNTING the individual combat points still on a COMPUTER game to make sure just to make sure that you will get to roll at 3 to 1 odds instead of 2 to 1?! Crazy. Still, Third Reich was there when nothing else was. Grade: C+

High Command: A face, morte, et peste, libera nos, Domine! Terrible economic balance which grossly exaggerated US strength. Far too difficult and cumbersome to engage in economic production or diplomatic moves, but if you left it to the computer AI to do for you, then you would be totally screwed. Units did not have realistic names. Even on the highest difficulty levels, it was very easy to beat the computer AI. I had so looked forward to this game that I was even more disappointed by it. I think that it was connected to company which made the great V for Victory operational series. The map looked nice. To execute a simple combat move took about 30 minutes of detailed planning and about 300 mouse clicks. Micromanagement to the extreme. Strangely, the icons and map of SC remind me very much of High Command, though. Ah, it could have been so much better. Grade: C-

[Desert Dave]

As originally posted by JerseyJohn:

With all these hundreds, perhaps thousands of excellent cardboard and paper games (Avalon Hill by itself must have had hundreds going back to the late fifties) you'd think there'd be some programming group that would gather them up and convert them, almost literally, into pc versions incorporating improvements such as fog of war, specific casualties instead a combat results tabe, etc.. and, of course, an AI player.

Yes, you surely would think so. Why it hasn't been done remains a mystery to me as well. But then, we who prefer these kinds of games do not make up enough of an audience, at least in sheer numbers, to interest very many bootstrap entrepeneurs.

What are the odds that a dedicated game player would also have requisite computer software design skills -- or, be in a position to influence those who do? Apparently, pretty small, else we'd have seen an SC type game before now.

Except, we DO have SC and Hubert, which is more than we had a year ago, yes? :cool:

And, this particular game designer seems to be actively interested in our opinions and suggestions, which in itself is astonishing to me. Perhaps it shouldn't be, but I am grateful nonetheless.

I enjoyed reading your post; at the least, it suggests a true and lasting passion. It largely reflects my own experience with those prior games, which were flawed but... until now, all we had in the turn-based WW2 genre.

Thank the stars (and, Hubert) that the genuine dearth in grand-strategy gaming has, at least for now, come to an end.

[JerseyJohn]

EB--dgaad-- & Immer Etwas

EB) Thought I was the only one with a version of Clash that cheated! Thought it was my own paranoia, then realized the AI was doing things that were utterly impossible. Yet, as you say, it remains one of the best -- a scenario editor would be a big help. Agreed with all the things you said about the other games; what drove me nuts in Axis & Allies was the Baltic Sea being entered freely from both the Artic and North Seas -- Germany needed to conquer the world to build a navy!

dgaad) Yes, I think wargaming and serious chess involve a form of reasoning most people don't use and don't understand.

-- A tournament chess game, with clocks running, is really a trip -- you're in mazes of complexities and trees and branches of moves, if cover the same line two or three times you're dead on the clock, if you don't you're prone to oversights. If you lose you can't say you lost it in the sun or it took a bad bounce!

Unfortunately all this gets lumped up with IQ, which is a falacy. It's a form of thought but doesn't demonstrate the gamer has a greater or lesser intelligence because of it. There were numerous studies involving chess masters (most notably Sam Reshevsky and Bobby Fischer) and the results seem to say more about the person doing the testing than the person being tested. --My favorite study was written up in the late eighties and stated "An exceptional ability at chess appears to indicate the individual's capacity to excel at the game of chess." Okay, that's pretty enlightening!

Immer Etwas) Pleased to find a kindred spirit -- it will always amaze me that Avalon Hill didn't take that track when they started making computer games.

There appear to be a lot more of us wargamers than anyone in marketing imagined. As you say, a year ago it was mostly the hand-eye shoot 'em up crowd that was being catered to. The sheer volume of posting on these boards shows we have real buying power and an insatiable appetite for quality strategy / tactical games.

Agreed we finally have a game designer who's listening to our opinions. It was very discouraging to see all those shoot'em ups coming out -- I was starting to think we'd only have CIV types and variants.

[dgaad]

Originally posted by JerseyJohn:

Unfortunately all this gets lumped up with IQ, which is a falacy. It's a form of thought but doesn't demonstrate the gamer has a greater or lesser intelligence because of it. There were numerous studies involving chess masters (most notably Sam Reshevsky and Bobby Fischer) and the results seem to say more about the person doing the testing than the person being tested. --My favorite study was written up in the late eighties and stated "An exceptional ability at chess appears to indicate the individual's capacity to excel at the game of chess." Okay, that's pretty enlightening!

That's funny. I'll use that.

But I wasn't meaning to suggest all gamers are smart. Heck, if I made that suggestion it would in fact be some proof of the opposite holding. I don't think you can say that about any profession or interest actually, in isolation. Even a rocket scientist might be otherwise stupid. I believe limitations regarding intellect even though one might excel at seemingly complex thought is known as the Savant phenomenon.

But, on the other hand, politicos and the military have realized the value of gaming, in the case of the military this valuation has been increasing since the 19th Century. The Prussian General Staff of the mid 19th Century was the first significant military organization to adopt forms of gaming to improve the experience and expertise of their officers. Today, such gaming can, as I know from personal experience in the US Army, involve the simulation of a conflict where the moves of the players are transmitted to real troops who must carry out the directives of the decision made in the sim -- in order to see the effects of those decisions on various aspects of things like movement, cohesion, etc.

I also know that "computer wargames" have been taken to a new and largely secret level in the US military establishment, where they have custom made programs that would be the ultimate sim for a grognard.

I would venture to guess that the success of US forces in the Gulf War was due, in part, to gaming the scenario repeatedly for months before the attacks actually went forward.

[JerseyJohn]

Extremely interesting info -- didn't know about the 19th century Prussian use of wargaming but it makes sense considering their string of decisive victories.

Real warfare and recreational wargaming do seem to be moving closer. As for the Gulf War, if anyone would have described it to me a year earlier, I'd have said they were screwy. Sure, the coalition should have won and the proportion of casualties should have been very lopsided, but the total lack of coalition casualties was truly incredible.

This is definately an extremely fertile subject -- and all this time people like us were only doing it for fun!