Stratetic Command: comments after game

[fulcrum28]

I have just started a full campaign and it is very addictive game, you always want one more turn before saving . I have some comments I would like to share, so any opinion would be welcome/helpful:

1) the game suffers from the lack of "coordinated attacks" which is probably the essence of warfare. Attacking one by one loses flavor I think. Just attacking one and pulling it back to make "room" to the next unit attack and avoid traffic jump is not so realistic, what do you think on this?

2) Is there no possibility to decompose an Army into two or three corps? or combine two corps into one army?

3)which are the benefit of armies when attacking instead of corps? It seems not visible in any number of factor shown in the screen, since all are strength from 1 to 10.

4) is it not possible to attack bombers or other fighters with your own fighters?

5) By locating fighters adjacent to bombers can maximize the escort level?

Thank you

[Taxman66]

#1 is also a very big issue in the naval combat.
There is no sense of fleet engagements.

[xwormwood]

1. Yes, we all still love Clash of Steel for that feature.
2. No, currently there isn't
3. Check the unit details. Each unit has a dozen of different values for soft and hard attack, air defense etc. When you compare an army with a corps, you will understand how valuable your armies are.
4. It is possible to attack bombers or fighters with your fightes. But during an enemy airstrike you can only watch, not interact on your own. On your turn, you can initiate air strikes against enemy air units. You need to target them to attack them. And you will only be able to attack them if they are in range, and if the weather conditions allow flights.
5. Better locate your fighters near the target of your bomber attack. Placing your fighters next to your bombers only helps if your fighter moves closer to the target, else it won't help much if you want to escort your bombers toward a far away target, they get no bonus range from being placed next to a bomber.

[DeriKuk]

Fulcrum, it appears that you are in search of a far more realistic combat system.

You may want to look into the "Decisive Campaigns" series: 1) The Blitzkrieg from Warsaw to Paris; 2)Case Blue; and 3) Barbarossa.

These games are all sold by Matrix/Steam, share the same basic system, but each is unique. Start with "Blitzkrieg". The scale is Operational - quite different from SC - but amazingly rich and rewarding. However, be warned; the learning curve is very steep. You will spend many hours figuring it out ... and then find an opponent who really knows what he's doing. It will send you back to the drawing board many time. If you're easily frustrated, it may not be for you.

The benefits of combined arms will become abundantly clear ... and none of this 'carousel of death' combat.

[xwormwood]

Don't listen to him.

Most other wargames suck when it comes to UI and AI.
Stay on the good side of the power, young grognardavan!

[fulcrum28]

Yes, the combat process itself, based on unit rotations for attacks, is a bit dissapointing, but the mechanisms are somewhat clearer or simpler than those form HoI3 or HoI4, what do you think about the comparison?

[Zecke]

ORIGINAL: Xwormwood

1. Yes, we all still love Clash of Steel for that feature.
2. No, currently there isn't
3. Check the unit details. Each unit has a dozen of different values for soft and hard attack, air defense etc. When you compare an army with a corps, you will understand how valuable your armies are.
4. It is possible to attack bombers or fighters with your fightes. But during an enemy airstrike you can only watch, not interact on your own. On your turn, you can initiate air strikes against enemy air units. You need to target them to attack them. And you will only be able to attack them if they are in range, and if the weather conditions allow flights.
5. Better locate your fighters near the target of your bomber attack. Placing your fighters next to your bombers only helps if your fighter moves closer to the target, else it won't help much if you want to escort your bombers toward a far away target, they get no bonus range from being placed next to a bomber.
6. Yes you will be dead, so long as you refuse to die.

[Zecke]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

Yes, the combat process itself, based on unit rotations for attacks, is a bit dissapointing, but the mechanisms are somewhat clearer or simpler than those form HoI3 or HoI4, what do you think about the comparison?

HIGH COMMAND¡

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Zecke

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

Yes, the combat process itself, based on unit rotations for attacks, is a bit dissapointing, but the mechanisms are somewhat clearer or simpler than those form HoI3 or HoI4, what do you think about the comparison?

HIGH COMMAND¡

I used to love that game (and Clash of Steel)

[xwormwood]

Clash of Steel is a great game. Played it again some weeks ago, still a good game, even today.
High Command was not programmed for me. I don't like the UI, no, correct would be "I don't like anything about this game". Can't help it.
Was like this when it was released, and felt the very same when I started it some weeks ago (Archives.org, DosBox).

[sPzAbt653]

I liked the High Command Production System. I didn't think the UI was bad for 1992, except for the click-fest of moving oil and minerals between factories. The Combat System was, however, quite awful. Up until SC3, I would still often play Third Reich and High Command as a break from other things, and as a visit to the past, and as a way to provoke 'what if' thoughts about future games.

[mroyer]

ORIGINAL: fulcrum28

1) the game suffers from the lack of "coordinated attacks" which is probably the essence of warfare. Attacking one by one loses flavor I think. Just attacking one and pulling it back to make "room" to the next unit attack and avoid traffic jump is not so realistic, what do you think on this?

Yes!! I agree 100% - I've been thoroughly enjoying this game solitaire. But I was very reluctant to invite my gaming buddy to buy it because the operational level feels sooo gumby forcing players to think and move units in very unrealistic ways. I really wish the game had stacking and multi-unit attack/defense - in my opinion it would put the game over the top in the genre.

-Mark R.

[nnason]

1. SC3 is a strategic game. Your observations are valid. If you want an operational feel there are many choices including Matrix's new Operational Art of War.
2. Try user created scenario Fall Weis 9.1

The Navy AI isn't very good. One of the reasons the Axis does so well against the AI at normal levels is Axis with decent play wipes out the Brits and then the USA navy thus making landings very difficult. On the other hand in a player to player game the sea war is hard for both sides. And both sides have to determine how much MPPS to put into sea battle.

Playing against a person is so much more fun and challenging. Get your friend to buy and go at it newby to newby.

Fulcrum28 as a Matrix veteran you know the value of the AAR forum.

[mroyer]

ORIGINAL: nnason
If you want an operational feel there are many choices including Matrix's new Operational Art of War.

I get what you're saying (I have TOAW and Grigsby's games and others too) and sure, of course your right. But your answer is to a different question (i.e., "What are good operational games?").

Just because there are other good operational-games available, has nothing to do with whether this game SC3 could or could not be better in that aspect. I suspect the real reason SC3 doesn't have the features I perceive as "better" (stacking, multi-unit attack) is because it would require a deep modification to the bowels of the engine-code and be difficult and risky for the developers.

... And, that's fine - this is a great game exactly as is. But, still I wish... it's soo close to being much better than just a great game (from a player perspective at least).

-Mark R.

[mroyer]

ORIGINAL: nnason
much more fun and challenging. Get your friend to buy and go at it newby to newby.

I finally did. He's a fan of "monster" games with deep thinking required. So I was a bit concerned he'd fail see the depth of SC3 for being blinded by lack of simple stuff like stacking (again, simple from a player perspective, not a developer perspective).

But... he's bought the game, says it looks cool and we're going to give it a go.

-Mark R.

[nnason]

Mark,
What monster games does your friend play?

When you get your Strat come legs lets have a match.

[mroyer]

ORIGINAL: nnason

Mark,
What monster games does your friend play?

We use to play table-top Europa, and Europa derivatives, pretty avidly. We played World in Flames for a while and various other stuff here and there. He was never interested in AH Third Reich because it was too unrealistic and I feared he'd have the same concern here.

We're sort of new to computer versions of these games - we played Grigsby for a while, but it was very confusing figuring out how much the computer was doing for you behind the scenes and how much you had to control directly. SC3 might be a good balance between easier to play but not too simplistic. Plus, I personally like the grand-strategy.

ORIGINAL: nnason
When you get your Strat come legs lets have a match.

Perhaps. I also wish SC3 were multi-player so we all could join in for a game.

-Mark R.

[nnason]

Mark,
Multiplayer is possible. Look here:
tm.asp?m=4348578&mpage=1&key=&#4381877

The Huge ones I player were War in East/War in the West/War in Europe by SPI. Never found anyone willing to play War in the Pacific. Still have those old board War Games. I have yet to try Computer World in Flames by have a game planned.

[mroyer]

ORIGINAL: nnason
Multiplayer is possible. Look here:
tm.asp?m=4348578&mpage=1&key=�

Nice, I'll have to take a look at that more closely!!

ORIGINAL: nnason

The Huge ones I player were War in East/War in the West/War in Europe by SPI. Never found anyone willing to play War in the Pacific. Still have those old board War Games. I have yet to try Computer World in Flames by have a game planned.

I think we played SPI's War in Europe and War in Pacific at one point many decades ago - not sure, hard to remember [:)]

Honestly, at a younger age, I use to digest 100's of pages of rules no prob, but now I have trouble reading long rules (I keep falling asleep [>:] ) so it makes learning new, complex games problematic. Hopefully, computer-assist will come to my rescue!!

-Mark R.

[sfbaytf]

This is your classic beer and pretzels type of game and very entertaining. I have other "more realistic" games but this is highly entertaining and I can't wait for the Pacific and combines Europe and Pacific game to come out. I'll definitely be a buyer.