Strategic Command 3

[Kuniworth]

When the smoke eventually clears, SC2 WaW will have established it self as the premier ww2 game so far. With all the new features this game got more potential then all competitors although sc2 is not best in all areas.

Now not to take away anything from this game, the question is where do Hubert go from here?

Well there is certainly a strong case to be made to continue on the ww2 path with a sc3 game. We got a pretty strong fanbase here and an experienced and dedicated dev team which makes a good job with the game(trust me I’ve seen the work the guys put into this one, when I made the battle for Russia scenario for WaW).

There is some things I love to see in addition to all what waw offers:


- Hexes. Mucho importante. Even if tiles never were the gamebreaker as many players thought, it still affected game-play. The big problem was not difficulty to get a good overview but turned out to be cutting off and surrounding towns and enemy forces. It became so much harder to simulate the flow of ww2 combat. SC1 was not perfect either due to lack of retreat rules but worked better.

- Lack of Retreat-rules. I think people should look a bit closer on Commander which simulate the ww2-type of warfare in a great way. SC, SC2 and WaW don’t got this which is a serious problem.

- bridges that can be blown up

- wider rivers and those more narrow, not just one scale

- More units, to use. I would like to see as ordinary units for different scales - Cavalry, Militia(volkssturm, people’s militia etc), SS(more elite infantry, not only commandos),

- Sea and land mines to be used in different scales of scenarios

- Slave/civilian labor force to use for fortification builds.

List goes on but I would love a SC3. I promise to make 5 scenarios for the release if ya let me.

[Ottosmops]

I agree to everything, especially to the hexes.

My number one wish is a stronger AI.

I guess it's to risky and to much work for the developer to make radical changes, like a zoomable 3D map, an enhancement of the turn based system to a simultaneous system with planning phase and execution phase, smart subordinate commanders doing the work I order them, and so on.

Though it would be a pleasant surprise to see something of this kind. smile.gif

[Baron]

Well I never thought I'd say this because I too wanted hexes but I think the tiles accurately reflect how hard it really was to surround and eliminate enemy forces.
Although hundreds of thousands were surrounded by both sides on the Eastern Front. Many tens of thousands escaped those traps. Thus the cadre function of rebuilding destroyed units at a discount accurately portrays this IMHO. Yes you can surround and destroy units in SC2WaW but it requires a very large commitment of forces. This is something that both sides found difficult to accomplish in reality during the war, “airtight" pockets were more a dream than a reality.
I also would like to see more units in SC3. I however think that most of these units should be in the Operational scenarios as opposed to the Strategic sized games. Somebody in an earlier thread mentioned assault gun icons for AT units when they get mobility - I really like that idea. Cavalry as mentioned would be another nice unit to add but I don’t think they were ever deployed in Corps strength. (I may be wrong on this one – I remember the Soviets deploying them in Division sized units – I’ll have to look it up in some of my books).
As far as SC3 though I think it needs to be taken to the next level and made on a global scale. The biggest hurdle is 1 tile land masses this could be overcome by letting units attack directly from the sea before being unloaded( a marine infantry unit would represent this nicely), of course if they didn't win they would
a) either be eliminated outright or
b) be susceptible to counterattack from enemy forces - let the enemy infantry attack the transport at sea for example with a bonus this could be reflected by a loss of readiness by the seaborne unit reflecting it’s disorganization as a result of not being able to secure a bridgehead.
Supply for those far flung islands could be represented by convoy routes much as we have now since they would not have cities. A scale would have to be worked out that represented so much readiness for so many points committed but I think it should be possible to represent this using the current model. I’m sure HC would be able to tell right away if it is feasible.
Anyways that’s where I’d like to see the next step in development heading.

[Alaric]

greetings, agree with most of the advices, only post to say that i will love high experience units available trough investment of mpp, it will feature russian guards units and ss units, maybe one turn for gain one medal and another turn for increase strenght from, as main example 10 to 11, it will take 10 turns to increase a unit to strenght 15, i think is much time but can worth the time, (of course i should make this as a only optional rule, not hardcoded, as it will not like by all players)

best regards,

alarick.

[Timskorn]

Some good thoughts here but we should also look at things from the dev's perspective.

How important are hexes? I'm personally not a long-time hex gamer, so I have no real opinion about this. I think tiles are fine but have they alientated a lot of grognards who demand hexes, or has it successfuly made a wargame "look" more pleasing to newcomers?

Retreat rules were discussed in another thread. Currently I believe they are unnecessary for how SC2 is designed.

The other things listed are little additions that may or may not add much to the game. AI is always difficult, but it appears HC has done a great job with it in WaW.

I tend to think higher level design regarding a SC3 or whatever other game HC plans on making. What's the design goal? The beauty of SC has always been its simplicity in allowing a player to experience the strategic decisions of WW2. WaW was a bit of a departure from that by adding new units with new roles.

It seems the next logical step for the franchise would be to make a global campaign. Doing a Pacific-only version may limit potential sales, and the global campaign is already out for SC2 and being converted for WaW. So what could be done to inspire people to buy a global campaign SC when they already have access to one?

A re-designed UI, updated graphics and an evolved gameplay style could do the trick to not only get us to buy it but entice "global players" to buy it (Such as the huge crowd who owns the HoI series).

SC3, in my opinion, should take things up to a new level and offer a distinct experience from SC2 and WaW. You can keep those on your PC and play them whenever if you want that kind of experience. It's always a risk though. Just look at the Combat Mission series. It's tempting to keep churning out the same game but with new enhancements/theater/etc, but essentially the same gameplay. Us crusty guys in the forums will probably keep buying them, but ultimately it doesn't bring in new sales and in the CM situation they saw declining sales, so they tried something new with Shock Force.

Anyway, I would love to see SC3 as a large, detailed look at WW2 global warfare. Essentially making each theater and aspect of gameplay unique enough to stand on its own so that everything feels distinct. The War in Russia, the U-Boat war and naval warfare, the Pacific theater (Island hopping, carrier combat, etc), political wranglings, research system, North Africa, etc.

Not necessarily making things more complicated and micro-managed in the process, either, just giving us a global campaign that has each part fleshed out to a point where you could separate it from the main game and have it stand on its own as a fun experience.

[arado234]

One thing I would like(IMHO would really enhance SC2 and W.a.W.and a possible SC3)is the stacking of units.In other games like Third Reich this is vital.I think in these games it will make a big difference to the overall strategys of the game.

[JerseyJohn]

We've had threads with similar ideas at Buntaland for a while now, mainly with a view to combining the best features from the DOS games Clash of Steel and High Command with Strategic Command and SC2.

To be honest, as much as I'd personally love to see such a creation (presumably Fury Software would need to work out an agreement with the CoS & HC designers), it seems like a longshot to me that Hubert would want to invest so much time and effort in a project like this. But if he does I'm sure a lot of people will welcome the result.

[SeaMonkey]

First of all, great job JJ in taming the "Lucky Animal" that Kuni was, and my congratulation Kuni for becoming a productive member of the SC community...just don't go off your medication. tongue.gif

The answer to the great question that Kuni has posed is two parts..... a definition or preference of one way or the other.

Either continue the format emphasizing improvement of the game mechanics, balance/variability, and AI interaction on a global scale, or ...essentially start over with only the present SC as a consideration for scale and purpose but following a completely different mechanism of simulation. :cool:

Eventually, IMO, Hubert will have to accept the latter and commit his considerable skills to the development of WWSC or perhaps embark upon a different genre altogether.

He could also choose to retire. :(

[Kuniworth]

The more sc waw I play the more convinced I am that the divisional scale is what works best for WaW scenarios. Bill Runacre's Poland scenario is an awesome presentation of all the possibilities with it. I also think that's why people loved thrawn, large spaces meant different kind of combat.

[Timskorn]

Yeah, nothing like going out on top! ;)

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by SeaMonkey:
First of all, great job JJ in taming the "Lucky Animal" that Kuni was, and my congratulation Kuni for becoming a productive member of the SC community...just don't go off your medication. tongue.gif
...:D -- Actually, Kuni's been the good influence on myself and several others. He assures us that those Lucky Animal guys were admirers of his and he tried to keep them in line and, darn-it, I believe him! :confused: tongue.gif :D

Great assessment of the SC situation. I haven't got WaW yet and won't be able to catch up with these new developments for some time yet so I can't offer an opinion on these new systems. I've played a little SC2, a little with Kuni in his early Barbarossa campaign, and some solitaire. From what I've seen it's a good game and I like the things Hubert has done with it, but I'll always prefer hexes to tiles. Also, I agree with Kuni 100% on things like units being able to retreat after losing or even withdraw with marginal losses without fighting at all, rather than stand and die; it makes a huge difference in the overall strategy.

But it also seems to me that a lot of this is just personal preference and pretty much all of us came up with hex games. As I haven't kept up with the new system I'd defer to the good players who have; one of whom initiated this thread. :cool: smile.gif

[william bowen]

You gentlemen are a lot smarter than I am about what is needed or what you would like to see in SC3 or the global campaign. I agree with another post about stacking, or several units could attack at the same time all lending their firepower into one resolution. What I think would be extremely important in the global campaign especially in the Pacific [if possible] is when you attack an island with enemy troops on it an inset would come onto the screen making the island much larger and be like a mini campaign within the main global war. The way it is now and I know Hubert is working on the global war, is it won't work right unless you can storm the island with your marines or use any other means to take the island. The islands must be made larger or the pacific war will not work in my humble opinion.

Willy

[justanotherwargamer1]

Well I might be just another wargamer (wait, I actually am smile.gif ), but I'm here to support the cause of the job isn't done yet.

SC1 was a good game. I didn't enjoy playing it for no small reason. It earned my time.
But it wasn't perfect, merely at the time without any competition worth comment. Actually, I think when it was released it didn't have any competition at all.

SC2 though, despite the supportive comments from the blokes that worked on it, has no edge over CEAW also known as Commander Europe at War.
Thing is, I guess I am equally biased, as I was involved in making CEAW.

SC2 with WaW added, is getting close to a decent enough design, but it's a bit late getting there.
And no matter how you tweak it, those tiles suck like a black hole.
The out of the box unmodded map with tiles visible is only good for eye strain and headache generation.
The pretty unit graphics will not hide the fact it is a board game loving, turn required wargamers type game, but with the wrong grid.

But it isn't just the grid that makes me bummed out. It's the seemingly unexplainable inability to stack units. And you can bet I have griped about that over at Slitherine for CEAW too.

Stacking is not some elusive impossibility like useful AI. Stacking exists in many wargames for the computer. There are so many wargames that easily manage stacking, that to claim it can't be done, is unacceptable.

No stacking in the veteran Third Reich, would have ensured the veteran Third Reich never reached that status.

What do you mean you can't justify an air unit and a ground unit and a naval unit in the same location?
One word, Malta. So you put a plane there, and have to leave it without a ground unit? That's unacceptable.
How about Gibraltar.
And then there's the Pacific. Good luck making me care you have a global option for the game. I doubt the design can even do it justice.

But I am thinking ranting about an SC3 is a foolish hope. I am not expecting to see an SC3 ever show up.
Maybe I am being overly pessimistic.
But when SC2 was first announced, I really didn't expect what showed up.
I didn't expect the damn tiles, I had thought the design would evolve to something more sophisticated. I expected more than a shiny editor and a few gaffes like Ireland fixed. I am not placated by battle mode. And a few new units is not much of a change.

If SC3 IS done, it better have at the least stacking, even if it keeps these worthless looking tiles.

I'm not going to even bother asking for a clever AI, they don't exist. I've had access to 95% of the wargames made from industry giants like Steel Panthers to games I don't like such as real time travesties as Sudden Strike. And I've played the graphics demanding 3d designs as well.
AIs come in two forms as I see it. Dull and average training tools, to brainless friggin morons.
If you can't defeat the AI in today's wargames, it's because you suck smile.gif
From wave after wave of mindess attackers in Steel Panthers Long Campaigns acting like drones, to real time games like Sudden Strike where the units simply can't be left untended for a second.
And there isn't an AI that understands the needs of amphibious warfare.

Ok enough raging smile.gif

As we speak, if I have to choose what to play at the grand strategy level, it is NOT SC2 even with WaW added on. Number 1 slot goes to CEAW. SC2 is second place, and I rarely have time for runners up.
CEAW wins only by virtue of a few details though.
Hexes. Yes I want those damned hexes smile.gif
Several aspects of the design are just a little bit better. But it's enough. And in a contest, there has to be a winner.

Give me hexes and stacking and you will get me back. And don't base my interest on giving me an editor. I play out of the box. I'm not interested in doing your work smile.gif
I can recognize an editor is a great asset to those that like one. I would rather the game be sold as basic and deluxe. Let those that want an editor, pay a little more and they can have it.

Final word.
Personal note.
I've been in this hobby since it was created back in the Tactics II days. I've seen it all, played nearly everything. I'm not a noob. Don't let the post count fool you smile.gif

[JerseyJohn]

justanotherwargamer1

Glad I dropped by and read your post. I agree with pretty much all of it.

If you remember back to the early Avalon Hill days, I think their first boxed game was Gettysburg and, thought the later versions had hexes and uniform counters, the first one had a vertical x horizontal grid on an otherwise fine looking map of the town and surrounding area, rectangular markers of various sizes for infantry divisions, cavalry brigades and artillery btns with small square OP counters. And no instructions! I know because I bought it back in 1959 or so, thought the instructions were missing and, as a 10 year old, tried figuring out my own rules. It wasn't till forty-five years later that I read an article by one of their designers saying they sold that thing without playtesting and something about how they never did write up the rules.

I'll try and find that article -- posted it at the old SC board a few years ago.

Anyway, what Avalon Hill did with that game was unprofessional and wrong, but I loved that game in any case -- it was fun trying to figure out how to face those rectangles for march and battle and what range to give the artillery. The fact that I never quite got it right didn't detract from the fun of trying. It was a miniatures game with cardboard pieces.

-- Their next Gettysburg game, the one with hexes, didn't quite work either; the movement was too slow and, again, the instructions were a mess.

I'm not so sure there won't be another SC with hexes and stacking. I know I'd like to see it and so would a lot of others for exactly the same reasons you've mentioned.

The original AH Gettysburg board:

http://images.boardgamegeek.com/images/pic89937_md.jpg

[ December 30, 2007, 08:58 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Konigs]

Just a side note, my first AH games were,
"Stalingrad" and "Victory in the Pacific" at the age of 12, 28years ago. Still have both. Got addicted young, was by then reading as many WW2 books as my school libraries and my father bought the Time series of WW2 books, as well as another set written by the Swedes. Luckily I have been given both sets. I digress though.I think the retreat option is included already. In WW2 mass force was used to smash a holein a line. When an army went on the offensive, it was not to drive a unit backwards. It was an attempt to use a schwerepunkt to open a hole, allow units to stream through and surround. Only counter attacks were really used to push an enemy backoff of a ridge or maybe limited assaults to capture a better starting point(bridgeheads etc) for an offensive. Units at the point of attack usually would break and retreat only to be reformed some miles to the rear of the original front lines. IE, a cadre being rebuilt at a reduced cost, basically some replacements and new equipment.
All the other ideas have merit, hexes though would require a significant increase of unit density. This may change the game quiet drastically.
I have CEAW and was disturbed by the time comsuming drives that seems to put the Axis further and further behind schedule. I admit I did not play too many times though, could have been a noob problem.
As always just my 2 cents, wargamer to other wargamers...... smile.gif

[Spectre of War]

I began my career as an armchair general at 10 when my Dad's friend gave me Avalon hill's wonderful games Waterloo & Stalingrad.

I played many many 'Wargames' over the years with various degree's of success. Computers finally became affordable and my first 'wargame' was the c-64 Theatre Europe. Many developers worked with the turn based idea but the age of eye candy was here so goodbye turn war. Civilization wet the whistle a little but was not really a wargame, as it was bogged down by irrelevent facts such as how many preformers your nation had. The very best of the turn based was the operational art of war, but mirco management bogged it down, such as moving companies and battalions, as well as maintaining supply "corridors" and such.

I had to resign myself to real time wargames (I use the term very loosely here) and FPS's.

Along came SC2. I was hooked. WaW was the clincher, I bought the bundle.
90% of my own ideas for WaW were implemented before I even expressed them.

I am getting to the point, albeit slowly.

SC3 sound great but be careful or you may just get what you want. SC2 is a good game because of what you don't manage, not what you do. KIS, Keep it simple. Saying this I don't mean there is not room for improvements, just think about what you ask for. I myself will quickly loose interest if I have to manage how much steel i have in reserve to produce tanks, or the most ruinous idea, Add nukes that turn tiles into rubble.

Alway the SPECTRE of WAR

[justanotherwargamer1]

First game was Tactics II. It used squares. It was fun till you realized "the other guy never runs out of reinforcements, and smashing through the line is nearly impossible if the other guy has any brains at all smile.gif

Nice training tool, but no real simulation of anything beyond WW1 trench warfare.

The later Blitzkrieg was a bit better. But again, if your opponent wasn't a bowl of jello it became WW1 too often.

Now I am currently playing the Panzer Tactics made for the DS. No stacking in it either, but it features some very capable supporting arms concepts.
It's not like a game can't be any good without stacking, but when there is no excuse for it's omission, that's another matter.

I'm recalling a show I watched just the other day.
When the Germans would initiate a Blitzkrieg attack, the "front" could in some cases be as narrow as a single road! The focal point of the assault is not required to be even a single hexside. But the entire force will be massed there all the same.

I consider a wargame great only when it can acknowledge the reality of what really happened.
If it can't recreate what actually occurred, I expect the designer to keep working till they figure it out.

After all, it might just be 50 bucks, but it's my 50 bucks.
And it's not my responsibility for the game to earn a profit, nor am I responsible for the designers personal life's bills smile.gif

[Timskorn]

What do you mean by "what actually occurred"? That can entail a pandora's box of details.

It seems HC had a pretty clear vision of what he wanted out of the SC series and he attained that and, to me and for many others, created a classic title that'll be played for years to come. SC1, SC2 and WaW have all been easy purchases for me. HC's design philosophy may alienate some grognards but in the process seem to have attracted new players to wargaming.

For me personally, I hope HC sticks to his guns at what he's done best, creating an engrossing wargame that almost anyone can play and enjoy. If adding stacking and hexes and one-road blitzkriegs and splitting up resources by metal types and whatever else will continue that, great.

[Lars]

Heh, after looking everything over and boiling it down, seems everybody wants an operational version of SC2 on a global scale.

Don't think it's out of the realm of the possible either. Bigger map and smaller units would do most of it right there.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Originally posted by Timskorn:
What do you mean by "what actually occurred"? That can entail a pandora's box of details.

It seems HC had a pretty clear vision of what he wanted out of the SC series and he attained that and, to me and for many others, created a classic title that'll be played for years to come. SC1, SC2 and WaW have all been easy purchases for me. HC's design philosophy may alienate some grognards but in the process seem to have attracted new players to wargaming.

For me personally, I hope HC sticks to his guns at what he's done best, creating an engrossing wargame that almost anyone can play and enjoy. If adding stacking and hexes and one-road blitzkriegs and splitting up resources by metal types and whatever else will continue that, great. First I think HC was more in tune with the crowd with SC1, SC2 seems to have been a different case.
As for his own vision, well I assume he's always understood his own mind smile.gif

As for what actually occurred, it's a common problem with wargame design, depicting what really happened, with a game design that occasionally has trouble simulating it.
Grand strategy seems to have the greatest trouble with this, as lower echelon game settings usually have more detail and thus more details to work with.
The trade off is the greater the detail, the greater the complexity. Complexity is often very realistic, and very time consuming and harder to play in a short span of time.

The trick is simulating those famous moments in time that changed the course of the war.
Ultra and Enigma are among the hardest aspects to emulate for instance.
Leaders making entirely brain dead decisions at key moments also are hard to replicate.

[Bill101]

I find the thought of stacking a little frightening.

I know that SC is not the most realistic possible game, but it very neatly combines a strategic challenge with ease of play.

Adding stacking would likely change the nature of the game a great deal, making it far closer to a serious, brain stretching, time consuming game. At the moment it is fun and no turn takes me more than 5 minutes to do, generally a lot less. I'd hate to have a turn take much longer, and I fear that stacking would have that effect.

Stacking wouldn't be unrealistic, but it would add an extra dimension that could for me be a game killer.

[Normal Dude]

I agree wrt stacking... I don't want it. Not that it would necessarly be a bad thing, but I think it would completely change the original scope and feel of the game.

[Timskorn]

I was going to mention something in regards to that with stacking. With WaW I feel we finally have more units to fill in the map, such as the Axis' ability to make three distinct Army groups for Barbarossa now. With stacking, in the current SC2 setup, we'd require even more units as a lot of them would be consolidated into a single hex, creating a feeling of "emptiness" on the map and focusing the fights way too much on small groups of units. This would, as Bill mentioned, create longer games to play. In a way, upgrades abstracts stacking a bit by allowing units to have additional abilities like AT and motorization.

I'd also agree with Bill in that I love the short turns we can do in the SC series. A global campaign would make them longer, of course, but that's acceptable considering the scope. I certainly enjoy detailed games where I can micromanage many aspects of economy and military (EU series, for example), and maybe HC will move in that direction, who knows? Like I said before, we already have SC1, SC2 and WaW if we want to continue playing this style of strategic game, and now we're getting a global scenario, so would SC3 continue along those lines with only a handful of key gameplay changes and graphics, or would it try and be a totally new style of wargame?

[Childress]

How about a provision to stack different unit types? For example, an armoured corps with an AT formation or combining a land unit with an air wing on a strategic location- like, I dunno, Guadalcanal. I think this preserves the game's lean simplicity and adds flexibility.

[JerseyJohn]

Originally posted by justanotherwargamer1:
First game was Tactics II. It used squares. It was fun till you realized "the other guy never runs out of reinforcements, and smashing through the line is nearly impossible if the other guy has any brains at all smile.gif

Nice training tool, but no real simulation of anything beyond WW1 trench warfare.

The later Blitzkrieg was a bit better. But again, if your opponent wasn't a bowl of jello it became WW1 too often. ...True. To me the original Gettysburg seems oldest because that was the one I owned as a child.

Blitzkrieg, though as you said had a tendency to deadlock, also had a good adapability factor. I remember SPI (or SSI?) put out a Blitzkrieg Expansion Kit and, even without it, a lot of us made our own variants using the board and basic game concept.

Found something interesting regarding AH history:
< Avalon Hill History 1952 - 1980 > (http://www.boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Avalon_Hill_Company_Index,_1952-1980)

from The Avalon Hill Company History, 1980

[transcriber’s note: I have attempted to copy the text of this document verbatim, including punctuation and capitalization. Game names are as they were recorded in the company history document. Additional information is available in each entry’s “more information” section. Date shown in parentheses is original publication date, per Avalon Hill]

Any attempt to chronicle the efforts of THE GENERAL (see The General Index) during its first 16 years is intrinsically tied to the output of the Avalon Hill Game Company itself in that the magazine exists solely to analyze its games. Therefore, a brief but comprehensive history of the company is presented here as an interesting, and hopefully useful, aid to the collector of AH games and hobby trivia.

Acquisitions:

3M games, purchased Feb. 1976
Sports Illustrated games, purchased in Dec. 1976
Aladdin Industries games, purchased in March, 1977
Battleline games, purchased in October, 1979

1952
Commercial board wargames originated in 1952 with the publication of TACTICS by Charles S. Roberts. Avalon Hill did not exist then, but this event constituted the sowing of the initial seed. Roberts sold the game on a mail order basis from his home address at 305 Gun Road in Baltimore for the next six years. Primitive by almost anyone's current standards, it was nonetheless the birth of the hobby we know today. Published by the "Avalon Game Company"--a nom de plume Roberts used for his non-incorporated cottage industry, Tactics was, of course, the forerunner of Tactics II which most hobby followers mistakenly credit as the first commercial wargame. "Avalon" was decided upon simply because Roberts lived in a section of Baltimore referred to by that name. Later, in 1958 when Roberts incorporated the name was lengthened for aesthetic purposes to "Avalon Hill"--the "hill" owing its inspiration to the fact that 305 Gun Road was not only located in Avalon, but was also atop a hill.

Tactics (1952) Discontinued in 1958
1958
Although officially incorporated as the Avalon Hill Company, and now being run as a fulltime enterprise, Roberts continued to operate out of his home. Nevertheless, three games were published and the foundation of a "line" of games had been established.

Tactics II (1958) Revised 1961, Discontinued 1972, Revised 1973
Gettysburg (1958) Discontinued 1961, Revised 1961, Revised 1964, Discontinued 1976, Revised 1977
Dispatcher (1958) Discontinued 1968
1959
Having survived its initial baptism by fire in the business community the company moved out of Roberts' home and into a commercial site at 7 South Gay St. in Baltimore. It now started to attract attention and began to branch out, and although still in its embryonic stages was able to publish its first game by an outside designer as two lawyers, who also happened to be the corporate attorneys, designed--what else--a lawyer game.

Verdict (1959) Discontinued 1960, Revised 1961
U-Boat (1959) Discontinued 1972
1960
The company moved again in 1960; this time to 209 E. Fayette St. in Baltimore. More importantly, it also got new blood into the creative end of things when a fellow by the name of Thomas N. Shaw was hired away from a local advertising agency to join the company in August. Shaw, a high school acquaintance of Roberts, was just starting what has become the longest standing term of employment with a wargame company--the only such company then in existence. Coincidence or not, the company's new game production increased the following year from one game to seven.

Management (1960) Discontinued 1971, Revised 1973
1961
The company moved again, this time to an industrial park at 6720 White Stone Rd. in Baltimore. It also flexed its corporate muscle by doubling the size of the line with seven new releases, including some which would lay the foundation for the "classics" which exist to this day. The hexagon was here to stay. Never again would square grids be given more than passing attention in future land battle game designs.

Chancellorsville (1961) Discontinued 1963, Revised 1974
D-Day (1961) Revised 1965 & 1977
Nieuchess (1961) Discontinued 1963
Verdict II (1961) Discontinued 1971
Lemans (1961) Revised 1965, Discontinued 1971
Civil War (1961) Discontinued 1963
Air Empire (1961) Discontinued 1963
1962
When Tom Shaw came aboard the previous year he had already ventured into the realm of game publishing. Back in 1959 he had designed and marketed two sports games which he sold in mailing tubes on a private label basis. A deal was soon struck, the games were boxed, and Avalon Hill had an instant sports line which remains in modified form to this day.

Baseball Strategy (1962) Revised 1973, 1977, 1980
Football Strategy (1962) Revised 1965, 1972, 1980
Waterloo (1962) Revised 1978
Bismarck (1962) Discontinued 1972, Revised 1980
JZ (1962) Discontinued 1962
1963
1963 was notable primarily for Avalon Hill’s futile venture into children’s games. A “line” of four boxed games for pre-schoolers was designed by Tom Shaw and priced between 98 cents and $2.98. With such great titles as IMAGINATION, WHAT TIME IS IT, DOLL HOUSE, and TRUCKS, TRAINS, BOATS, & PLANES how could they miss? It may have had something to do with the fact that pre-schoolers couldn’t read the instructions. IMAGINATION was actually revised in 1969 and repriced at $3.98 but bombed again proving that all the revision in the world can’t save a bad idea.

Stalingrad (1963) Revised 1974
Word Power (1963) Discontinued 1964, Revised 1967
1964
In 1964, Roberts finally gave up the struggle of trying to make a go of a pioneering adult strategy game company and was about to throw in the towel. Plans were made to declare bankruptcy on Friday, Dec. 13, 1963, but the company was saved at the eleventh hour by its creditors: J.E. Smith Co. and Monarch Office Services. Monarch had handled all of Robert’s printing previously, and Smith had done the boxes and assembly. The company was reorganized and cut expenses to the bone. J.E. Sparling was the new president and the corporate offices were once again moved; this time to 210 W. 28th St. in Baltimore. It is this address which graces the cover of the very first issue of THE GENERAL. Only Shaw remained from the original personnel. Despite such major problems the company immediately settled down into the two-game-a-year format that was to characterize it for the next eight years. Despite the reorganization, 1964 saw the introduction of a couple pretty fair titles still with us today.

Afrika Korps (1964) Revised 1965, Revised 1978
Midway (1964)
1965
Before 1964 was over, Monarch Office Services had moved to their current address of 4517 Harford Rd., and Avalon Hill’s corporate offices went with them. In the past 16 years 4517 Harford Rd. has become as recognizable an address to wargamers as 1100 Pennsylvania Ave. is to observers of the American political scene. General McAuliffe joined Rear Admiral Wade McClusky (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Wade_McClusky,_Jr. link] to form the much ballyhooed (at the time) AH Advisory Staff.

Battle of the Bulge (1965) Discontinued 1981
Blitzkrieg (1965) Revised 1975
Squander (1965) Discontinued 1972
1966
By now, Tom Shaw’s role of “developer” in the design of new games—heretofore that of a glorified art director executing the actual artwork for the new games—was lessened even more as the commercial artists at Monarch assumed those duties. The developer concept was still in the embryo stages and bore faint resemblance to the far more detailed workload assumed by a modern day developer. In 1966, AH unveiled its first genuine sales hit, but it wasn’t a wargame.

Shakespeare (1966)
Guadalcanal (1966) Discontinued 1972
1967
Another figure entered the scene in 1967. James Dunnigan designed his first commercial boardgame. He was to use the experience as a springboard to launch a company of his own which would eventually give AH its first serious competitor for the still very limited wargame audience.

Jutland (1967) Discontinued 1971, Revised 1974
1968
The company took another chance in 1968, gambling on the marketability of two religious games: YEAR OF THE LORD and JOURNEYS OF ST. PAUL by Rev. Eugene Dougherty. If anything, the experiment was an even more dismal failure than the children’s games of 1963 had been. After three years, the remaining stock was virtually given away to local clergymen on the condition that they come to haul them away in lots of 500 or more. On the credit side, the company’s sole wargame offering set sales records for a new title up to that date.

1914 (1968) Discontinued 1973
1969
1969 marked the third consecutive year in which AH introduced only one new wargame. The small, but hungry, wargame audience was thirsting for more and AH’s limited publishing schedule was tempting others to try their hand.

Anzio (1969) Discontinued 1971, Revised 1974, Revised 1978, Revised 1980
Choice (1969) Discontinued 1972
C&O/B&O (1969) Discontinued 1972
Tuf (1969)
Tufabet (1969)
1970
There were two wargame offerings in 1970 and what a contrast they were! PANZERBLITZ took the little hobby of wargaming by storm and was an instant hit of heretofore unheard of proportions. More importantly, it had staying power. Still going strong more than ten years later as the 12th best selling wargame in the 1980 line, PANZERBLITZ is the only wargame to have sold more than 200,000 copies (depending, of course, on one’s definition of wargame). KRIEGSPIEL, on the other hand, was a dismal failure from the wargamer’s viewpoint. It was a constant target of derisive critics, but nevertheless sold well on the charisma of the title alone.

Panzerblitz (1970) Revised 1971
Kriegspiel (1970) Discontinued 1979
Stock Market (1970)
1971
This was the year of AH’s rebirth—not so much because of the games it put out—but because of the inner restructure of the company itself. Heretofore, the company had been under the combined management of two prior creditors with differing notions of how the company should operate. On Nov. 30th, Monarch Services acquired complete ownership of AH and the company commenced what was to slowly become a much more aggressive pursuit of the wargame industry under new President A. Eric Dott. Monarch continued to print the games and Dott founded his own box company for packaging and assembly. AH was on the road to controlling its own destiny for the first time with all production facilities under control of one central management. Old warhorse Tom Shaw was made Executive Vice President and became the principal charter of the company’s day to day affairs.

Luftwaffe (1971) Revised 1972
Origins of World War II (1971)
1972
By this time AH management realized it could no longer depend on outside sources to design its games and started to rebuild the R&D staff which it had gone without since Roberts’ exit. Don Greenwood was hired in May to take over The GENERAL and Randall Reed came aboard a few months later to become the first full time designer in the history of the company. Heretofore, personnel such as Shaw, Schutz, etc. were either part-time, or had to divide their time among everything from marketing to mail order shipping. It was the start of the long road back to in-house design self-sufficiency.

France 1940 (1972) Discontinued 1978
Outdoor Survival (1972)
1973
1973 saw the first AH in-house wargame design of any repute since the original days of the Roberts’ classics. There would be many more.

Richthofen’s War (1973)
Business Strategy (1973)
1974
If AH was reborn as a company in 1971 in terms of its corporate structure, it was truly reborn in the eyes of the public in 1974 when its dynamic duo of Greenwood & Reed combined to put out eight wargames. While three of these (ANZIO, CHANCELLORVILLE, & JUTLAND) were remakes of older titles the average wargamer sat up and took notice nonetheless. While this relative flood of new wargame titles was well received, the company was also taking a flyer on an offbeat project of their own. Top management decided to leave the realm of games and produce a couple of do-it-yourself kits entitled BLACK MAGIC & WITCHCRAFT. Bold experiments are often doomed to dismal failure. These certainly were, but The GENERAL did expand to 36 pages and wargamers were regaining their faith in good ol’ AH.

1776 (1974)
Third Reich (1974) Revised 1975, Revised 1980
Basketball Strategy (1974)
Alexander the Great (1974) Revised 1975, Revised 1976
Panzer Leader (1974) Revised 1975
1975
This was the year that the hobby started to become an industry. Heretofore, little game companies came and went, but had little contact with each other. Certain companies were openly critical of their competitors in print. But the birth of ORIGINS, a national gaming convention initiated by Avalon Hill, brought the various companies under one roof where personal contacts could be made for the first time. It would ultimately lead to the acceptance of the wargaming hobby as an industry unto itself. 1975 was also the year that Mick Uhl joined the now steadily growing design staff.

Caesar’s Legions (1975) Revised 1976
Wooden Ships & Iron Men (1975)
Tobruk (1975) Revised 1975
Beat Inflation Strategy (1975) Discontinued 1976
1976
From a batting average viewpoint 1976 was the year AH went 6 for 6. If there was any doubt that Avalon Hill was producing “state of the art” games, it disappeared after the second ORIGINS convention in Baltimore. Richard Hamblen joined the design staff that summer.

Kingmaker (1976) Revised 1980
Diplomacy (1976)
War at Sea (1976) Revised 1977, Revised 1980
Caesar (1976) Revised 1977
The Russian Campaign (1976) Revised 1977, Revised 1978
Starship Troopers (1976)
==

I remember the early 60s bringing out a lot of Civil War games because of the centenial. Some were good and most were pretty awful. One of the better ones on this entry level, using squares, was1863, put out by Parker Brothers. AH had American Civil War which was played on a great hex map with a lot of details but the game itself was only some plastic pegs and a very simple system. In all of these games a Union player with any idea of what he was doing should always have won.

In the mid-60s I remember Avalon Hill's D-Day and Stalingrad (which was actually Barbarossa 1941-43) being the most fun to play many times over. An interesting feature was the two sides had armies that were basically different from each other, leading to an unbalanced situation with good tactical possibilities.

One thing most board games had that I think was an important element was units, either attacker or defender having to retreat as a result of combat. It's missing in both SC and SC2 and, as was mentioned earlier, this would be a good feature to bring back.

[arado234]

The only reason I mentioned stacking was so you could move your airfleets right up to the front to give them max.range without fear of being attacked by ground units unprotected.

The ground unit stacked with the airfleet would have to be destroyed first then you could attack the airfleet with any ground units that were capable.

I do agree that it would add more time to each turn but you could limit it to just one airfleet being able to stack with one ground unit.No stacking ground units.

[Bill101]

I'd rather have my air units just a little bit behind the front line, otherwise they would be in range of the enemy's artillery. I see your point about maximising range but a difference of one tile surely isn't worth changing the game engine for?

In the normal scheme of things I think it would really be too risky to put them in the front line, even though I occasionally do when carrying out a Blitzkrieg type operation - but that's the risk I take!

[arado234]

I dont know whats involved in changing the game engine but there would be instances throughout a game where one hex would make all the difference,especially in Russia.But like you say Bill if it requires alot of programing then you are right its not really worth it.

I do know in Third Reich it does make a difference.

[carverrt]

I guess these changes would require programming.
But, if they add to game play, it might be worth it.
I think stacking might be hardest to tackle and might be the least return on time and effort. Two additions that would add to game play are a defensive retreat option and an amphibious attack (from a sea hex) on an occupied land hex option.
Robert

[Kuniworth]

In Commander units retreat automatically when taking to much punishment. The exception are units in cities, they never retreat.

[justanotherwargamer1]

I want to comment on game engine.

In SC3, I am not interested in beating SC3 out of SC2.

I think SC3 should be new software if it's going to be done at all.

I don't want a mangled SC3 with hidden gems that will plague the game for years.

HC was ok with dumping SC1 and giving us a totally new looking game in the form of SC2. Not sure if the SC2 code is remotely the same as the SC1 code, and not interested in knowing I suppose.

I just want SC3 to look like I thought SC2 was going to look before all the learning in SC1 was thrown away.
As I see it, SC1 was abandoned for SC2.
I won't feel any pangs of regret abandoning SC2 for a better SC3.

[SeaMonkey]

So you want it as it really occurred or as close as posible....sorry not going to happen in a game, simply because life is full of unreproducible intangibles. But there is hope of a relatively accurate simulation, although that fact is opinion driven, but there will always be a need for a player's rationalizing imagination.

A map is a map, is a basis for interaction, tiles, squares, hexes, a grid.....doesn't matter if it produces the effect.

Think about what actually occurred, millions of human beings collectively and at odds with each other in conflict for a sometimes shrouded goal. You're going to simulate that in a game of perhaps two humans representing those multitudes of decisions? You're going to have to represent the different scales of delegation from the strategic to the tactical in some manner of reproduction.

There is but one model, generally unrefined at the SC scale, that even has a chance at the possible reinactment and it will take an evolution like SC has seen to bring it into the realm that we would consider successful.

That model, understanding that it is only a basis for ideas for the future of SC3 is the Airborne Assault software developed by Panther Games.

[JerseyJohn]

Actually, SC3 out of SC2 isn't what Kuni was talking about.

It was, or at least as I see it, a suggestion for Hubert to move ahead with a hex-based game incorporating the ideas he mentioned and that some of us added in subsequent posts.

There's no reason for SC2 to be junked. I have no idea where that came from. People like it and play it.

Anyway, as I said in an earlier post, it seems unlikely that a single designer, especially one who works alone, would want to go off now on a different game system when he's got one that is already doing the job.

-- Also, as was already said, a lot of this only an expressing of personal preferences, such as hex maps over tile maps.

[justanotherwargamer1]

90% of my need is stacking.

With stacking you get Advanced Third Reich.

A person can't ask for much more than that.

Hexes are better than tiles. Well at least according to my eyes. I have never gotten a head ache looking at hex gridded wargame maps. Easy enough to just not use grid.

Realism. If I can't place a ground unit to garrison Malta (best example normally available is Malta), and have an air unit to defend it. As well as have naval units based there, the design needs fixing.

Being forced to pick garrison and no air defense, or air defense and no garrison is just plain clumsy designing.
I don't expect a massive garrison, and I don't expect a massive air fleet. But to have to pick is unacceptable.

If the game goes global, how will it depict invading an island?
They only took those islands to provide air cover or air bases in a lot of cases.
Are we going to be stuck unable to garrison AND base air on them?
That will make having the Pacific included in the game a total waste and a reason to just not play it at all.

Suspension of disbelief has it's limits.

Ability to invade vs a coast that is defended. Well lets see, Torch, Husky, Overlord, several islands in the Pacific do we need any more examples of why a unit being on a coast hex should only mean casualties will be higher.
The idea "hah ha I am in the hex so you can't invade it now" is the same as saying the game is a farce.

[Timskorn]

It's abstraction and it works fine in SC2. The "Malta Effect" abstracts the British ability to interdict shipping, even if you don't have air their.

[Lars]

Actually, you do have air there in a sense if you upgrade the AA. Just because it isn't a whole air wing, doesn't mean there's nothing.

Justanotherwargamer has a few points, but most of what he's arguing for is really just different abstractions.

[Timskorn]

It's these kinds of gameplay details that are not in the game for a purpose. Among many, many others in SC2 which are either abstracted or represented in some other way. There's a tradeoff for every design decision. If you view SC2 in that light it's an extremely well designed and balanced game. HC could have diverged from that and kept tacking on details here and there, slowly whittling away abstracted elements. Then you're in this weird area where you don't know what the game is trying to be. "Why is this so detailed, but this abstracted? It's clearly just important!".

[xwormwood]

Carriers are sea units with a limited air strike ability.
Therefor they should always do worse air strikes than regular air units.

So, if i may dare to ask, why not introduce land units with limited air strike ability?

a) Infantry with air strike ability (limited and worse than regular air fleets).
Use them in Malta or Crete.
Choose, if it should do strategic, tac or cap duty. Choose it with buying the correct upgrade.

b)Tank units with air strike ability (limited and worse than regular air fleets).
Use them for tank breakthroughs. Buy the correct upgrade.

etc. etc.

Call these units "stacked" units, or call them whatever you want.

Create a new navy unit with an infantry upgrade.
Allow these specific navy units to invade coastal hexes / tiles. Don't allow them to move further inland.

Enable these new unit with a switch (on / off) before starting a game. Those who don't like it can make it away with a little click.

Should solve pretty much nearly all problems we are talking about in this thread without changing to many things and without too much effort.

And than give us back hexes. Because tiles are the worst solution. If you don't believe it, start a poll and ask your customers.


Thank you for your attention.

[ January 02, 2008, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Lars]

Circles! I want circles!

Actually, I've played many good games that have that system. Hexes are just as much an abstraction as squares.

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Lars:
Hexes are just as much an abstraction as squares. Yes, they are.
And they are better abstractions as well.

[ January 02, 2008, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: xwormwood ]

[Lars]

Define "better".

[SeaMonkey]

Well I guess we are discussing a continuation of the same or similar platform, so I will limit myself to those parameters.

What I would like to see is a return to the basic combat units, like infantry, armor, airwing, CV, BB, etc. Taking that basic building block and adding the additional features in the form of assets, enhanced and controlled by the army group commander/flagship admiral/airmarshall, etc. historical characteristics.

This pattern can be reassigned from the strategic scale to the grand tactical by simply using the commanders at...say the regimental level and giving units a various strike range, number of strikes, etc., depending on the asset attachment configurations.

The assets are the smaller unit task specific organizations of artillery, fighters, dive bombers, anti-tank/air, CAGs, engineers, heavy armor, naval escort, motor pool, etc.

[ January 02, 2008, 11:30 AM: Message edited by: SeaMonkey ]

[Philippe]

Wargames switched from squares to hexagons in the early nineteen sixties. The reason for the change was that a one hex movement on a field of hexagons always covers exactly the same distance, regardless of the direction of the move. On the other hand, a one square move on a field of squares covers different distances depending on whether the move is on a diagonal or not.

If a force is arrayed in a diagonal line on field of squares it is possible to slip a piece through the line by moving along the other diagonal if there aren't any zone of control rules in effect. This can never be an issue with hexagons, because you always move across the side of a space and never through the corners.

You're over forty years too late to even be discussing this. A designer chooses to use squares, hexagons, areas, or points of intersection on movement paths based on what he feels works best for a particular simulation. It's absurd to talk about one system being inherently better than another. You either like the designer's choice or you don't, and if you don't, then go out and design your own game.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Hexes do have one issue tho, and that is the "grain" of the boards, which makes movement work differently in the N/S direction than it does in the E/W.

Me, something like how Command HQ handled it might work-pausable real time and if the vectors of two units got sufficiently close they fought it out until one retreated or died. Since the old Microprose classics Decision in the Desert and Crusade in Europe handled pausable RT quite well (my two first computer wargames), it wouldn't offend my sensibilities at all. Just an idea...

[xwormwood]

Originally posted by Philippe:
and if you don't, then go out and design your own game. Yes, very smart, my friend, but please let me help you here, because it spells

and if you don't, then go out and purchase a game from a different designer.

We (or at least I) like Hubert for what he did with SC 1 and SC 2, and so we (or I) take the liberty to ask him to design an even better game whenever we (or I) want to.

This constant "shut up or go away" attitude here is starting to be very annoying.

You have seen the title of this thread (SC 3), haven't you?

So for a new and probably improved game the fan base shouldn't ask any wishes and start design their own game instead?

Great!

[Marty Ward]

The only thing I want from SC3 is for it to be as much fun to play as SC2. This is one of the most enjoyable titles I've played in years. The freaking map for SC3 can look like a 60's album cover for all I care. smile.gif

[Timskorn]

Haha, Command HQ! My first PC wargame. What a damn blast that was. First time I played multiplayer over a modem too. That game is a great example of being able to abstract a war like WW2, yet give you that great feeling of having control over the entire war. It's an abomination of historical accuracy, but it was fun.

[justanotherwargamer1]

I require one thing from a game in order for me to buy it.

It better run.

Now, as for liking a game, if you want me to like it, it has to do more than just run smile.gif

SC2 is likely a lot less buggy that a great many other games out there. That's nice.

But, in a market where everyone is clamouring for my money, you have to give ME what I want, in order to win me. Soooo it's not an option, for the designer, to just do it his way, unless they are merely interested in making the game for laughs.

I suspect HC wanted a profit. I suspect he's made at least some profit, because his game appears to run at least.

But, he hasn't made a major classic in SC2. Nope, SC1 was the classic. SC2 is just a less than perfect round 2. And like a lot of sequels, often the sequel is just not as cool as the original.

So, while he likely will enjoy making and selling SC2, I'll likely stick to playing SC1 until I get something "I" call better.

[Timskorn]

In that case, he just needs to determine how many people want to buy the game you'd like, and how many people would buy the game we like and then make the one that'll make him the most money.

[JerseyJohn]

Why does this keep coming down to one or the other?

What Kuni is suggesting, and what a lot of us would also like to see, is a companion game that uses things like hexes and stacking. Hubert gave an interview a couple of years back (with Curry) in which he said he enjoyed DOS games like HighCom and Clash of Steel and the original SC was influenced by them and similar games.

So the suggestion in this thread is that Hubert design a parellel strategic warfare system using hexes (and possibly sea zones as in COS), with tactics using retreat as part of combat etc & etc. This is not unreasonable, especially as most of us thought that would be SC2.

-- And Hubert was perfectly justified to design SC2 in a way that satisfied him; he's its creator, the rest of us are only players.

Kuni, in that he's been one of the biggest fans of SC2 from the start, and was one of the first to make user scenarios for it, also has a right to say he's in favor of an alternate game system.

Please don't tell me, or anyone else, to design it themselves. I'm neither a programmer nor a game designer and at this stage of life am not about to go into either activity. Aside from which that kind of remark is like telling a motorist to build a new highway if he doesn't like trafic jams. :rolleyes:

All that's being offered in this thread is suggestions to Hubert. He can take them, or leave them. No big deal.

[jon_j_rambo]

Money is overated. Squares are lame.

[justanotherwargamer1]

Originally posted by Timskorn:
In that case, he just needs to determine how many people want to buy the game you'd like, and how many people would buy the game we like and then make the one that'll make him the most money. In the end, that's generally what I assume is usually the decision.
I can deal with being the 1 out of 10 instead of part of the 9 out of 10 smile.gif

Often a game (or anything for that matter) can and usually does fail, when a person attempts to score all 10 out of 10.

[PowerGmbH]

Xwormwood: I agree with you, stacking is not really necessary if you have a Expansion option for the units.

GENERALLY I THINK SIMPLIFICATION IS ALWAYS BEST, so i am not really Fanatic of all this "new Units" like anti Tank or Anti Air,
I think the Main Old Units could have some more Upgrade Features.
For example if a Corps gets a REAL anti Tank Upgrade ( This REAL Anti Tank Upgrade may Cost, say 60 MPP ) and an Anti Air ( or say an Air Brigade ) so you would best solve the Malta Effect as well as the Stacking Problems.

All this different Units are not allways useful, sometimes there is simply not the Place to Put Anti Air, Anti Tank and Artillery on a specific combat Zone. A Corps with Artillery Upgerade and the Army with a Air Squadron Upgrade may be easier to handle.

[Hyazinth von Strachwitz]

@ PowerGmbh:

Fully agreed. At the moment there are 3 possible upgrade slots per unit, and if Hubert designs a different engine with more slots (4 or 5), he can easily achieve what you mean.

Example Tac Bombers: they have three slots for upgrades, one for Anti-Tank (which kills infantry better, what nonsense), one for long range and one for anti-ship. Basically it would make more sense if this unit has 4 or 5 slots: long range, anti-ship, anti-tank and anti-infantry (in that case that means all none-armored units, i.e. Arty & HQ).

I think the new engine will be the most important issue in SC3. Once upon a time I suggested to Hubert that the player can "create" his own units.. the normal standard corps comes with 3 infantry divisions and one Support/Maintenance brigade. The player can attach Tank Hunter Brigades, AA Brigades, Arty support, Pioneer Battailon (entreches quicker) and whatever else we can imagine. For those player who think it`s too much micro management: they can use archetype units..

The combat values of the Corps itself results from all the extensions the player buys.. and to make it more realistic, you need to produce the extension brigades separately before you can attach them...

[Kuniworth]

thread still relevant.

[Joe98]

This is a grand strategy game. Sitting up high as a commander at the grand strategy level there is no difference between a division of US infantry and a division of US Marines.

If you say “quality” this can be achieved. Each unit has a number of variables and one of those is quality. Quality can be “researched” in the factory at a cost so some units have higher quality than others. And the ability to name units would then satisfy every player. One of them might be named “Marines” for example.

At the grand strategy level there are no anti tank units and no artillery. Rather each unit has a number of variables. One would be anti tank and one would be artillery. Each of these can be researched in the factory so that some units are better than others.

Another variable would be movement. This too could be researched in the factory. Some infantry units then have greater movement capability than others thereby representing motorized units.

This idea of having Marine units and anti tank units is not appropriate at this scale.

[Joe98]

As for squares. If you are going to use squares then movement and combat should be limited to UP, DOWN and ACROSS. If you really want to move diagonally then you should switch to hexes.

I am astonished that the game view is isometric AND units move diagonally!
-

[Lars]

Er, why?

You spatially disorientated?

[SeaMonkey]

Well in SC3 I would like to see a breakdown or numbers attached to the graphs of the contributing MPPs from every friendly resource.

This would be a good addition into the "Reports" layout screens. Let me have some numbers at the top of those bar graphs showing the resource levels of factories, mines, cities, and oilfields.

I want to see the exact contribution of every MPP generating tile, like sort of how the diplomatic screen is.

It names the source/tile for each country by selecting the flag and on the same line the MPPs generated for that location.

Maybe for the enemy resources, the revelation could be tied to the intelligent research level.

[pzgndr]

I am astonished that the game view is isometric AND units move diagonally!
What, you never played chess in your whole life?? I guess looking at a chessboard at an angle with that isometric view made moving bishops diagonally a difficult experience. How about moving those horse things two up and one over?? :rolleyes:

Too funny. Y'all crack me up.