Is the scale just too large???

[Jeff Heidman]

Each unit represents such a large portion of your combat power that it seems like there is not really enough options as far as defending territory and attacking the enemy. Combined with no stacking, the game becomes a WW1ish slugging match against a competent opponent, at least it has for me so far.

Germany seems to have a pretty tough time of taking out the USSR, if a couple things are true:

1. Germany does not use the "buy 10 air fleets" gamey tactic, and

2. The Russian player just buy corps. And lots of them. The Soviet player can buy 4 per turn. Can the German player, without ridiculous air power, destroy 4 per turn?

Jeff Heidman

[pzgndr]

The SC scale is consistent with 3R/A3R, WiF, and CoS, which seems appropriate for grand strategy gaming. I always thought the 3-month turns in 3R lacked something, but the game worked. I like the 2-month turns with variable impulses in WiF, but never got into the game. I think Hubert is considering something with variable impulses for SC2 which would give us a few more turns per year, but not weekly turns all year long. The map scale is fine; the map just needs to be larger to include another hexrow or two on the north, east and south, and a lot more on the west to make the Atlantic and North America proportionally correct with everything else.

The corps/army size units are OK, but some way of stacking units would be nice - like 2 corps or corps+rockets or whatever. Armies and tank groups probably shouldn't get to stack with anything. I KNOW I'll be criticized for this, but a few specialized corps such as airborne and mountain could be added, even at this scale, to provide some unique operational capabilities which were historically employed. The higher cost and limited benefit of such specialized units should provide reasonable limits on their use. I just don't see a problem with a few of these units in play, at least as an option, although others will strongly disagree. Not sure where Hubert stands on this issue, but we'll all find out one of these days. (Let's all leave it at that and not have another airborne debate? )

I'm reluctant to endorse ideas that will "grow" this game into something bigger and more complex than it needs to be. It's fun right now. A campaign game can be played in a couple of days, a PBEM game in a few weeks. That's great. I like the scale and vote to maintain it. Let's work to improve play balance and historical accuracy at this scale and not try to invent a significantly different game.

[sogard]

I agree with the conclusion that Bill Macon reached that the scale is not a problem with STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC). I do believe that the choice of scale and unit size, particularily the emphasis on the Army level, makes the scale particularily appropriate.

I continue to believe the reason why the game departs so radically from the historical model is because the game permits players to do things that their historical counterparts could not do. The historical leaders could not choose to ignore the realities of what fuel constraints meant. The historical leaders could not mass produce Air Fleets regardless of their actual industrial base. The historical leaders could not rely on a basic economic model which is out of whack (Germany and Italy's production versus those of the Allies).

The good news is that SC is, I believe, fixable. SC can provide a much more balanced game (than the current Axis dream scenario), which is exciting for both sides to play and is a much better model of what WW II looked like in the European Theater.

This is going to be an important factor when tcp/ip is implmented and players go out on the net seeking others to play the game. Who, in their right mind, would want to play the Allies?

All these changes and an improved game can come from the existing scale. Bill is right to point to both ADVANCED THIRD REICH and WORLD IN FLAMES (my personal preference of the two) as examples where game scale identical to SC works very well and creates an exciting game for both sides with a much more realistic view of WW II.

[ October 04, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Canuck_para]

I think the scale if fine with the exception of ocean travel time, and the inability for subs to hide for more than a turn. Limits on aircraft builds might be in order to reflect some limitations that leaders had during WW2.

I could live with everthing being Corp level if stacking was included. I would actually like to have this ability.

[sogard]

STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is simply chock full of examples where the game design fails because it places no realistic limits on what a player can do. It is not just the 20 Air Fleets one can build; but, the fact that you can literally transport enormous numbers of troops and invade with them.

Once again, Germany and Italy are the equals of everyone else.

:confused:

The game design says that the designer is only a computer geek. Any interest in reality is simply window dressing.

While the game might get an A in a programming course, it would get an F in an elementary history course.

As the game presently stands, I could not recommend it for tcp/ip play to any gamer that seeks a competitive game.

[Gman]

I would like to add to what Canuk-Para is saying with regards to Sea travel times...The Brits are pressed to reinforce the Med. During WWII many convoys travelled around Africa and up thru the Suez. As long as the Brits hold the Suez can ships enter the Med from the Suez (going around Africa)taking additional turns to simulate the travel time. Or Alexandria be made a 10mpp port with the capability to build units.

[Norse]

The SC manual says 1 corp = 50.000 fighting men, and 1 army = 100.000 fighting men.

Reality is that it is twice as much. Germany etc., used 1 corp = 50.000 fighting men, by the book.

But in this game, things are bigger than that. Compare say, the Axis defence in France in the Overlord campaign, against the Axis defence in-real-life '44. Then you notice that both side's should have had twice as many units *if* 1 army = 100.000 men. So, there you go. 1 army = 200.000 fighting men.

~Norse~

[Rouge]

your right norse also some countries structured their forces different to other countries, for example during the african campaign the allied corps were not quite as large as the italian ones but they were considered to be full strength, the SC manual is a bit mistaken to maybe it should be 50000-10000 for corps ect or a "give or take a few thousand men" attitude.

[BriantheWise]

Well, gotta be honest. I'd play the Allies anytime. Assuming equal luck for both sides in the research race, or roughly so, I think the Germans have a hard time of it. Yes, the Russians get knocked back over time by the combined forces of the Axis, but that's where the Allies come in and make the second front.

In the games I've played, the Axis simply do not have enough time to take both the Spain/Portugal area AND the Norway/Sweden area. So, while the Russians are getting pounded, the Allies build up their research and take one or the other of those areas, whichever is available for some added industrial base.

If it's Spain/Portugal, then there's a war of attrition that will syphon off Axis momentum in the east. If it's Norway/Sweden, the Allies are still poised to do their landing in France and assist the Russians.

I can't wait for TCP/IQ.

Just my opinion.

[Brian Rock]

Originally posted by sogard:

The game design says that the designer is only a computer geek. Any interest in reality is simply window dressing.

While the game might get an A in a programming course, it would get an F in an elementary history course.

This is far too harsh. Bear in mind that there are now hundreds of players pushing the system to breaking point and unearthing issues that I'll wager never cropped up in testing.

Designing a game to simulate reality is damn hard. Even a game like World in Flames is up to about Edition #37 of the "Final Ultimate Never-to-be-Amended Again" version of its rules (all eighteen volumes of them), and it's still got loopholes and bugs.

Furthermore it's far from clear that a more detailed treatment will necessarily give a more accurate outcome. Additionally complexity can often introduce seemingly minor elements that through the whole system out of whack.

I think the game scale and overall approach are fine but in need of tweaking. I also recognise that SC was never intended to be a high-fidelty reworking of WWII, and to expect it be one is unreasonable IMO.

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

Originally posted by sogard:

While the game might get an A in a programming course, it would get an F in an elementary history course.

Then there are those members of this board that would get an F in an elementary etiquette course.

On these ever-so-groggish boards, some members always seem to me like a pack of hounds dragging down some noble stag.

Geez. It's a game , not a pre-nuptial agreement. Don't take it so seriously.

Of course, then there's the Finnish Faction... that's a whole other story.

- Holzem

P.S.: Pleeeeeez Hubert!! For the love of god, pleeeez pleeeez pleez put the port of OooogaBoooga (off the coast of Madagascar, no less!) into the game since the Liverwurst deliveries that were taken in there during the period of June 11-12, 1942 practically turned the tide of the war!!!! God please make it so!!! Hubert!!! Are you listening????? I CAN'T TAKE IT!!!!! A Finnish dry-cleaner I know PERSONALLY told me it was so!!!!

[sogard]

Brian Rock responded to my post saying the game deserved an A in programming and an F in history:

"This is far too harsh. Bear in mind that there are now hundreds of players pushing the system to breaking point and unearthing issues that I'll wager never cropped up in testing."

I am very sympathetic to the notion that the amount of play testing being done with STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC) is many times greater now, after the release of SC, than anything Hubert was able to accomplish with a small and loyal playtest team. I also think that SC was playtested primarily from the point of view that the game would be played solo against the AI.

Brian continued:

"Designing a game to simulate reality is damn hard. Even a game like World in Flames is up to about Edition #37 of the "Final Ultimate Never-to-be-Amended Again" version of its rules (all eighteen volumes of them), and it's still got loopholes and bugs."

Yup, but as an opponant of mine in a pbem game note, it is funny that a simple game like AXIS AND ALLIES gets WW II right much more realistically than SC as it is presently configured and designed. That is why I gave SC an "A" in programming. But, it is also silly not to acknowedge flaws in the present game. How is it ever going to get better?

"Furthermore it's far from clear that a more detailed treatment will necessarily give a more accurate outcome. Additionally complexity can often introduce seemingly minor elements that through the whole system out of whack."

Who is talking about more complexity? The problem is that the game provides neat computer programming and a not very good game. This is without even beginning to discuss whether the game faintly resembles history. The game is unbalanced. You have to really WANT to play it after you figure it out in order to continue to play SC. That is not good for the game or for its reputation. I very much WANT SC to work. Otherwise, I would simply give up on the game and go off and do something else which was more satisfying.

Brian wrote:

"I think the game scale and overall approach are fine but in need of tweaking. I also recognise that SC was never intended to be a high-fidelty reworking of WWII, and to expect it be one is unreasonable IMO."

But, it should provide at least a solid game along with as much historical reality as say AXIS AND ALLIES. But, it doesn't right now. That is unforunate. I think Hubert understands this and I think he is big enough to take fair criticisim and use it to improve SC. He is doing a hell of alot of work on tcp/ip (for which I tip my hat to him). But, all the effort on tcp/ip implementation is going to be wasted if at the end of the day, the verdict is that SC is not a very good game because it is unbalanced and looks nothing like WW II. (SC is being marketed as a WW II grand strategy game and that is what it ought to be. There is a market for this.)

HolzemFrumFloppen wrote:

"then there are those members of this board that would get an F in elementary etiquette course."

What a silly response. I consider Hubert to be a gifted game designer. Giving him a pass is more disrespectful of what he has accomplished than anything I can think of. I fully understand how difficult it is to create any good game design much less do it on a computer. To come up with anything is a remarkable achievement. That is why Hubert's design deserves to be tied to a better game. The good news is that it could be done. It will never be done if Hubert never hears about how unbalanced and unrealistic the actual game is. And, that is what you are saying. The best thing one can do to provide honest critcisim is to be accurate.

"Geez, It's a game, not a pre-nuptial agreement. Don't take it so seriously."

I can not think of anything that is more disrespectful of all the work Hubert has poured into SC Holzem. (And, I am sure that you do not mean it as such.) I do not think that Hubert intended to design a nifty program which is not a terribly good game on WW II. I am sure that Hubert intended to design the best program and game. He is tantalizing close; but, it is dishonest not to note where the problems are.

Alot of very good games have gone through this teething process. This was true for simple games like AXIS AND ALLIES to much more complex, WORLD IN FLAMES and THIRD REICH. None of these games got better because gamers said that the original design was great even though they knew there were problems. The games got better because folks who love gaming took them seriously to spend the time to playtest and provide honest feedback so that the game could be fixed.

Otherwise, SC will simply die a quiet and sad little death and it will be noted in future game reviews as a noble effort which just missed the mark. SC does not have to miss the mark and it can be the great game that I think Hubert intended to produce.

[ October 05, 2002, 10:21 AM: Message edited by: sogard ]

[Carl G. E. von Mannerheim]

Posted by Holzem

Of course, then there's the Finnish Faction... that's a whole other story.

One day holzem.........one day.

[HolzemFrumFloppen]

One day holzem.........one day.

Hehe.

I love you, man.

- Holzem