OT : Strategic Command WW2 War in Europe

[patrickl]

Just bought this game on Matrix Website. Daily turn with robust editor. Naval, land and air action. 1939 to 1945. [:)]

link to Forum : tt.asp?forumid=1252

[warspite1]

Its a fun game and I am pleased I bought it. I did a couple of AAR as the Allied player, which were fun to do, but had to stop playing part way into my first Axis AAR due to other commitments. Now those are over I haven't yet found the motivation to return to the game....

Its not a patch on World In Flames in terms of scope, game mechanics or, I suspect, replayability, but it does have one massive advantage; it works.

[Mundy]

I've had it about a month.

I think it runs a bit too much on rails.

The conquest of Norway simply happens, as with Denmark. I'm not keen on the fact that you have no choice about Italy joining the war. Also, if you don't attack the USSR in 1941, they will attack by the end of the year. In real life, they were years away from making that decision.

I declared war on Sweden. Fortress Stockholm is the toughest nut I've ever faced.

[Timotheus]

ORIGINAL: Mundy
Also, if you don't attack the USSR in 1941, they will attack by the end of the year. In real life, they were years away from making that decision.

Errr.... wut?

I realize that in the USA most modern historians are hacks who basically copy each other for "source material" and never, ever go into actual archives. The days of Toland reading archives and interviewing event participants from BOTH sides are long over (recommend "But not in shame" as reading for everybody interested in WW2 Pacific War).

My rule of thumb of modern American historians is this: If he has Polish roots, he is good (checks out - Balkoski, Forczyk are GREAT military historians). If he does not have Polish roots / name, then usually it is trash (Ambrose, etc etc etc etc). Modern american historians usually have an agenda to push, and damn the facts.

There are some GREAT modern Russian historians though, who, when given the chance in the "thaw" when the archives were opened a bit, and now that Putin has made "the one and only true history of Great Patriotic War" official, worked their tails off to write what really happened.

Now that Russia has "the one true version" of WW2 history and writing anything else is punishable by prison, things are a bit different.... What can I say, it takes balls to be a Russian historian, which is why the hacks who have no "axe over their heads" in USA piss me off when they write their horsepoop.

Anyway, these modern Russian historians: Mikhail Meltyukhov, Igor Bunich, Mark Solonin - and of course Rezun - hats off to them.

These guys will NEVER be published in the West, because... reasons... they go against the one true and official narrative of WW2 where the Germans were the bad guys and the Soviet... the good guys. KISS principle in full force.

If you're curious, start here:

Solonin books on his page, in English

[warspite1]

Forczyk - great? Good definitely, but personally I wouldn't put him in the great camp.

[adarbrauner]

ORIGINAL: warspite1



Its not a patch on World In Flames in terms of scope, game mechanics or, I suspect, replayability, but it does have one massive advantage; it works.

[:)]
[:(][:)][:(][:)][:(][:(]

[morganbj]

ORIGINAL: Timotheus

ORIGINAL: Mundy
Also, if you don't attack the USSR in 1941, they will attack by the end of the year. In real life, they were years away from making that decision.

Errr.... wut?

I realize that in the USA most modern historians are hacks who basically copy each other for "source material" and never, ever go into actual archives. The days of Toland reading archives and interviewing event participants from BOTH sides are long over (recommend "But not in shame" as reading for everybody interested in WW2 Pacific War).

My rule of thumb of modern American historians is this: If he has Polish roots, he is good (checks out - Balkoski, Forczyk are GREAT military historians). If he does not have Polish roots / name, then usually it is trash (Ambrose, etc etc etc etc). Modern american historians usually have an agenda to push, and damn the facts.

There are some GREAT modern Russian historians though, who, when given the chance in the "thaw" when the archives were opened a bit, and now that Putin has made "the one and only true history of Great Patriotic War" official, worked their tails off to write what really happened.

Now that Russia has "the one true version" of WW2 history and writing anything else is punishable by prison, things are a bit different.... What can I say, it takes balls to be a Russian historian, which is why the hacks who have no "axe over their heads" in USA piss me off when they write their horsepoop.

Anyway, these modern Russian historians: Mikhail Meltyukhov, Igor Bunich, Mark Solonin - and of course Rezun - hats off to them.

These guys will NEVER be published in the West, because... reasons... they go against the one true and official narrative of WW2 where the Germans were the bad guys and the Soviet... the good guys. KISS principle in full force.

If you're curious, start here:

Solonin books on his page, in English

So, after that unnecessary, political, and stereotypical slam at American historians and the glorification of all who are not, what did the poster say that was wrong? Were the Russians going to invade Germany by December, 1941?

Please cite a non-American "factual" source, because, apparently, no American historian knows any facts.

[adarbrauner]

-

[Canoerebel]

The gratuitous and whacked out rant against historians made me laugh.

[Canoerebel]

I looked seriously into buying Strategic War when it came out. I especially read the SW forum comments, trying to discern if it was truly an epic game or if it was destined to flame out pretty quickly. The game seems to be doing pretty well, but I never got the feeling that it was outstanding. I didn't make the purchase.

[warspite1]

I think its a fun game - for a while. But its biggest failing imo is the lack of proper choice and decision making. Many WWII events are programmed to happen or not in binary fashion and they...well happen (or don't). For the aspects of war that this relates to e.g. Winter War, Invasion of Norway, Invasion of Persia the units are moved (or not) and that's it really. Even things like Italian entry - which really should be in the hands of the Axis player - are too straight-jacketed.

I have to compare it to MWIF and there is simply no contest. So yes SC is good fun, but compared to the depth and breadth, the replayability, the sheer awesomeness that is playing MWIF just isn't replicated.

[Alpha77]

Played a very early version for a while, it was quite fun, but not "complex" enough for me on the long run. But if last versions improve on the early ones, I would guess that it is now a good game ! [:)]