Entrenchments .. and ZOC

[IrishGuards]

E's seem to be very easy to kill .. means leavin nothing around even Moscow ..
Shock w Tac and then its 3R .. advanced of course ..
Rail them in .. Yellow .. send the Oil .. whitey ..

What is this SC .. I keep hearin about this what .. A game ..??

My brother wont even be able to tell the difference between .. [8|]
I like it better if he's across the table throwin dice at I ..
White .. Yellow .. Red ... and lets throw some Orange in there .. [:D]
IDG

[SMK-at-work]

SC = Strategic Command, usually meaning "Strategic Command 2 Blitzkreig" published by Battlefront games in 2006 - plenty of info & forum at their website - not sure how Matrix feel about urls on here, but it's at www.battlefront.com. 
 
Also can refer to the first Strategic Command game, "Strategic Command European Theatre" published by them in 2003 but now usually considered obsolete - apparently still has people playing it tho

[targul]

Strategic Command 2 is a highly developed and tested wargame.  Its AI is extremely good for historical play. 
 
Human play in the game seems to often head in ahistorical ways due to the loot acquired when capturing areas.
 
Larger map with many additional items will be presented in the new expansion soon to be released.
 
Both games are fairly similiar other then SC2 has been tested by many players for an extensive period of time compared to this untested game.
 
Convoy system in this game seems superior to SC2.  Retreat after combat is a unique factor to this game.  Map presently larger in this game. 
 
Navy much better detailed in SC2.  Realistic reinforcements in all areas.  Actually troop numbers seem to be present throughout map.  Functioning Malta in SC2.  Balance seems much better.
 
IMO SC2 and this game both are great games. SC2 is already developed and the developer is constantly upgrading and has begun to issue expansions for the game.  Many mods also available.  So presently SC2 is superior but this game has great potential and interesting ideas that if properly used could make for equivilent game play.
 
 

[SeaMonkey]

Exactly right targul. SC has had the benefit of years of Hubert's enhancements and forum feedback, tested and incorporated.

SC has managed to evolve into probably the best grand Strategic level wargame on the market for simplicity and immersion.

Literally hundreds of strategies to prosecute with many avenues of investment usually dictated by your opponent which incorporates expotentially hundred of more possibilities.

The best part, both sides are balanced and you can finish a game in a reasonable time period making for outstanding human to human competition.

Sure, it could be improved and it will, but presently you have the epitome of this genre, CEaW is years behind.

Don't you question the resilience of the developers and the forum community of CEaW?

SC is the only game Hubert Cater caters to[;)], it is his baby. Can you say the same for Slithering? Somehow I don't see parity for a longtime.

But I could be wrong.[&:]

[IrishGuards]

Well ... Maybe Irish Guards will look for the newest patch and play some SC also ...
I have some small amount of Experience at the game ... [:D]
IDG

[IainMcNeil]

Commander is Firepowers only game, so I don't understand the implied attacks here. Battlefront has more than one game. Get your facts straight

[IrishGuards]

SC ... That guy with the 7 year old should play SC ..
It is more basic than basic and way ahistorical ...
I played it again yesterday for 5 minuites ..
Then I remembered why I stopped playing .. [:'(]
IDG

[targul]

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

SC ... That guy with the 7 year old should play SC ..
It is more basic than basic and way ahistorical ...
I played it again yesterday for 5 minuites ..
Then I remembered why I stopped playing .. [:'(]
IDG

Strongly disagree here SC2 is presently the best wargame on the market. It is historical. All the units are present. All reinforceements do arrive. Economics are correct. Politics for game are available.

Now if you are playing there 5 year old version of SC I cannot tell you if it good or not since I have never played it but I do play SC2 and it is awesome.

I am sincerely hoping this game can do near as well making it historically accurate and with an AI that functions.

[SeaMonkey]

Sorry Iain, I didn't realize "Firepower" has only one game and this is it. So how many developers are there working exclusively on this game?

To straighten the facts, Hubert Cater, the designer of SC, has only one game out as far as I know and he's been working on it for a very long time, close to a decade.

That one game is Strategic Command in its different installments, presently the initial and 2, "Blitzkrieg", and the soon to be released expansion "Weapons and Warfare".

I very much would like to see CEaW receive the same dedication SC has.

Do you think its fair to assume that it will? My apologies for any inaccurate assumptions on my part.

[IainMcNeil]

No problem
 
Johan is in a very similar situation. He is the designer and programmer and at the moment the only person in Firepower, but if things go well I'm sure that will change
 
Through the Kameleon project we helped hone the design in some areas by targeting some key features that would make it stand out (Convoys, manpower, oil) and matched him up with an art studio in Canada called DoubleThink. We also helped in the logisitics such as FTP space, bug database systems, testing teams (all teh dull stuff that's needed to get a project done ) 
 
This is Johan's only game and I know he intends to support it.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: targul

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

SC ... That guy with the 7 year old should play SC ..
It is more basic than basic and way ahistorical ...
I played it again yesterday for 5 minuites ..
Then I remembered why I stopped playing .. [:'(]
IDG

Strongly disagree here SC2 is presently the best wargame on the market. It is historical. All the units are present. All reinforceements do arrive. Economics are correct. Politics for game are available.

Now if you are playing there 5 year old version of SC I cannot tell you if it good or not since I have never played it but I do play SC2 and it is awesome.

I am sincerely hoping this game can do near as well making it historically accurate and with an AI that functions.

I will have to strongly disagree with you here: what proves that SC2 is the best wargame on the market? There's lots of better wargame out there...
SC2, for me = my opinoin, is dry and slow. Square grid does not cut it in today's high power PC's. The naval aspect of the game is sorely lacking.

And yes I own SC2.

CEAW, again for me, seems more fun. I know lame statement without something to back it up, but I can't really describe it better than that. I know it's got some problems, but geez the way all the ranting is going on here you'd think it didn't even run! It runs fine and plays well and can only get better.

And no I don't think CEAW is the best game out there... yet.

[targul]

I will have to strongly disagree with you here: what proves that SC2 is the best wargame on the market? There's lots of better wargame out there...
SC2, for me = my opinoin, is dry and slow. Square grid does not cut it in today's high power PC's. The naval aspect of the game is sorely lacking.

And yes I own SC2.

CEAW, again for me, seems more fun. I know lame statement without something to back it up, but I can't really describe it better than that. I know it's got some problems, but geez the way all the ranting is going on here you'd think it didn't even run! It runs fine and plays well and can only get better.

And no I don't think CEAW is the best game out there... yet.

 
This is not a bad game but it is an incomplete game.  I too dislike squares but hexes really dont make a better it only makes it look different.  Now days many games use area instead of hexes or squares.
 
I find this game fun but ahistorical.  The lack of units and reinforcements give the Allies makes it both ahistorical and unbalanced in favor of the axis.  This is wrong and since I play historically a game breaker.
 
As to game potential I think this game has alot.  But the techinal things all games have like PBEM playback, not zeroing in on combat in IP games make those games very difficult to play and certainly leave both players at a loss for knowing what is going on.
 
AI in game is good in Russia and France but that is it.  Med and Africa is extremely bad actually non existant.
 
Finally and most importantly, is that unbalanced issue.  I ask daily without a single positive yes who has beat a human player as Allied.  Far as I can tell no one has beaten a humam person playing as Allied.  Now this is a horrible record.  The complaints should be no one has beaten the Axis but when you play the Axis you win.
 
I am still completing some games that I agreed to prior to gaining knowledge of the "Axis Balancing".  I am still waiting to lose as the Axis.  I hope someone defeats me.
 
I hope someone wins verse the Axis to prove me wrong.  I like the game but it is simply incorrect and biased to the Axis and that needs immediate repair to make this game any good.
 
 

[firepowerjohan]

Personally I think there is just too little statistical ground to proofing either way or the other yet, so everything has to be based on perception so far. From games in beta versions where I played several games, we found that in fact Allies when played correctly has at leist 50% (Vypuero claims 60-40 i.e 60%) chance of winning the 1939 scenario. But maybe if only playing the game a few times, the Allies are harder to handle and have less room for errors. However, with experience Allies is very powerful also.

You remember Starcraft? I always chose Terran or Zerg and never Protoss. Not that I really meant they sucked, but I knew I sucked playing them. I also knew I had never really taken time to learn them either [;)]

It is very easy to chance the code in 5 minutes (actually you could also by using any of the scripts) to make allies stronger but in order to do so I need to base it on stats and not beliefs. If we were to make a completely historical setup then I guess Allies would have a 90% vs 10% chance of winning unless we allow ppl to avoid the Axis vs USSR wars and similarily. But that would also be a totally different game and CEAW focus was never to be political what-if simulator of how any WW2 could have looked like in the 1940's but instead one where it is determined which countries are proaxis and which are proallies.

But in fact, for the next patch we are making the Allies (especially USA and USSR) stronger so already next weekend you can probably play the 1.01 version of CEAW and enjoy a balanced game (or in fact a slightly Allied biased game). Until then, you are free to use the handicap settings.

[IrishGuards]

I agree with the perception comment .. In any game Allies have to find a way to defeat Axis .. Axis play different startegies in a new game and what worked once .. might not work again ..[X(]

And I also agree with the correctly statement .. If you don't use labs and production properly .. you are in for a world of hurt if Axis upgrades .. [&o]

Allies must do certain things in the game to plan for 41 - 42 .. this takes a very good player as .. yes allies have to get the right mix of units to places on board .. before they are needed .. they have to be proactive .. and effecient at the same time .. not an easy combination .. [:-]
Historical .. depends how historical ... I dont need machine gun battallions like in Europa ..[:D]
IDG

[targul]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

Personally I think there is just too little statistical ground to proofing either way or the other yet, so everything has to be based on perception so far. From games in beta versions where I played several games, we found that in fact Allies when played correctly has at leist 50% (Vypuero claims 60-40 i.e 60%) chance of winning the 1939 scenario. But maybe if only playing the game a few times, the Allies are harder to handle and have less room for errors. However, with experience Allies is very powerful also.

You remember Starcraft? I always chose Terran or Zerg and never Protoss. Not that I really meant they sucked, but I knew I sucked playing them. I also knew I had never really taken time to learn them either [;)]

It is very easy to chance the code in 5 minutes (actually you could also by using any of the scripts) to make allies stronger but in order to do so I need to base it on stats and not beliefs. If we were to make a completely historical setup then I guess Allies would have a 90% vs 10% chance of winning unless we allow ppl to avoid the Axis vs USSR wars and similarily. But that would also be a totally different game and CEAW focus was never to be political what-if simulator of how any WW2 could have looked like in the 1940's but instead one where it is determined which countries are proaxis and which are proallies.

But in fact, for the next patch we are making the Allies (especially USA and USSR) stronger so already next weekend you can probably play the 1.01 version of CEAW and enjoy a balanced game (or in fact a slightly Allied biased game). Until then, you are free to use the handicap settings.

I am happy to hear you intend to do some upgrades for Allies in patch. Those are the two nations having trouble. UK is just fine as far as I can tell.

I understand your feeling there is not enough statisical evidence to support a change. But as you know I have been on a seach to find that one Allied winner. Todate not one person has said they won playing the Allies. Doesnt that seem a little strange?

Sorry but it should not be a 50/50 chance the Axis can win unless you change the victory conditions. The Axis really should have only a small chance of winning with those conditions. If you alter the conditions with different time periods then you can still do a 50/50 and be correct. Example of poosible Axis victory condition Axis holds Port Said, Paris, Moscow and either Stalingrad or Lenningrad at end of any year. There are many other possiblities that could be used for Axis victories without giving the Axis more then they had to make them fun to play and balanced. If you want to make England an important victory condition you could say if by end of 42 Axis holds London, Gibralta and Port said and Moscow it is an Axis victory.

I like seeing victory conditions that give the Axis a real chance of winning but not at the cost of historical forces, production and effiency. The Axis was a sound fighting machine until the end of 42 and they began to seriously fall apart so if the Axis player did better then history of the actual war I can see it being fair to call the player a victor since who knows what would have happen had Moscow or London actually fallen. No one but we can speculate.

[SeaMonkey]

Targul I must digress. Predominantly I agree with everything you say....and by the way, THANKs for your services, but the three things you mention as being solidfied as historical have everything to do with the final outcome.

I don't want to have to go point by point cause you know...I know you know.....All those parameters could have been done differently under "you"...the player's management.

That is essentially, "the game". There should be one scenario, grant you, that allows the players to compete on the same field, at that moment.

What better, than at the first, where those basic early decisions make the most difference?

I agree an historical scenario should have the ending in the small set of various conditions widely agreed to by most historical references, the winner being the player that exceeds those conditions.

In fact, I think there should be a number of chronologically different scenarios with alternating bias for the players to choose from.

In this manner you can fulfill a number of different opinions about conditional winning and provide a mechanism to level the playing field for players of different experience levels.

[targul]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Targul I must digress. Predominantly I agree with everything you say....and by the way, THANKs for your services, but the three things you mention as being solidfied as historical have everything to do with the final outcome.

I don't want to have to go point by point cause you know...I know you know.....All those parameters could have been done differently under "you"...the player's management.

That is essentially, "the game". There should be one scenario, grant you, that allows the players to compete on the same field, at that moment.

What better, than at the first, where those basic early decisions make the most difference?

I agree an historical scenario should have the ending in the small set of various conditions widely agreed to by most historical references, the winner being the player that exceeds those conditions.

In fact, I think there should be a number of chronologically different scenarios with alternating bias for the players to choose from.

In this manner you can fulfill a number of different opinions about conditional winning and provide a mechanism to level the playing field for players of different experience levels.

Yep we agree here.

[Rocko911]

The facts are as follows, both games have their strengths and similarities. Commander has more of a Panzer General Influence and SC2 has a little more in the area of perhaps a World At War influence (politics). I have both games and am happy too. I think Commander lacks some polish in areas and hopefully we can get Matrix to help in the money/programming help to get them fixed quickly. Then perhaps we will see this game become one we talk about 10 years from now, like we talk about Panzer General. Also SC2 is a better game human vs human.

[IrishGuards]

After seeing even units entrenched 8 .. Fall in 1 turn ..
I really think the entrenchments and fortresses should soak up some damage before the unit gets slaughtered ... And I mean slaughtered ... [X(]
And this should also be culumative ..
Forts take some punishment before the unit is totally killed ... so do Ent ..
Why is the unit taking all the punishment .. Nay my troops ..
This would really give the Russian a reason to garrison his cities if he knows he might survive .. [;)]
IDG

[Vypuero]

Just to clarify - I want to achieve 60/40 for Allies - I don't know that we have yet.  I think we may be 60/40 for Axis, so that has to change - but also there are too few games finished with humans!  Why? because its a LOOOONG game!  I also suggest not assuming a win even if axis gets Moscow, because an Axis collapse can happen even after that.