Strategic Command: World War I

Awesome

Overall: 9/17, minimum pass. I don't understand why most NM Objectives are 1-tile resources near enemy border and changed hand in real history, when other resources aren't, so I turned most of them off. I wish the developers to not use Mercator in a regional (not world) map. Developers did well in decreasing micromanagement, but I still want to cancel individual HQ rating (only maintain research) to not think of which HQ buffs which corp. The following is my play style, 1914 Call to Arms as central (spoiler warning). In short, Germany attacks Russia, AH attacks Russia, Ottoman attacks Egypt, appease Italy. 1. Advantage and Drawback 6 major ententes are separated in 5, only France and Italy share a land border; 3 major centrals are separated in 2, only Germany and AH share a land border. Therefore, it's harder for entente to aide each other. Central can use this advantage to knock them out 1 by 1. Central occupies far less resources than entente, so late game is in favor of entente, central must attack from at least 1 front. 2. Russia first Among hostile entente majors (France, Serbia, Russia), Russia has the longest border with central, and it's mostly plain, an easy-to-attack terrain. Central can deploy all troops to attack Russia, while it's too narrow to deploy all troops against France or Serbia. I dislike declaring war on neutral countries, because this tells all neutral countries that the declarer is evil and gives all hostile countries a reason why they fight for this war. (From UK's opinion, WW2 Germany declaring war on Norway is a blunder, UK people turn from Munich appeasement to finest hour.) 3. Relocate It doesn't need so many troops on Western front against France. Where to operate, Eastern Germany or Eastern AH? I have no idea which 1 is better, I select to deploy in Eastern Germany because HQ from a country can only assist land units from the same country. 4. Caucasus Mountain If Ottoman also attacks Russia, it's a 3V1, Russia will surrender quickly? No, the terrain is too bad to attack for both sides, it's too hard to surround a unit in all 6 directions. My fightings on Caucasus usually give little help to Germany and AH. But UK has a drawback: it's too hard to deploy troops in Egypt and Kuwait. It means with every 1 kill, UK has 1 fewer troop there. Even without occupying resources, Ottoman can win the battle. 5. Appease Italy This makes Italy almost impossible to join entente. Italy has 20k NM, while appeasing only makes AH -8k NM. France has a wider front to attack, so the production of lost territory is less than reinforce cost. Romania relationship is only entente 55%, still hard to join entente. The only drawback is that Ottoman needs a landing to occupy resource-rich French Maghreb. 6. Encircle of Warsaw Germany army is stronger than AH army. When appeasing Italy, AH army gets a 1-time debuff of some turns, making them unable to attack, or even defend. Therefore, I prefer that Germany army attacks deep into Russia, while AH army encircles Warsaw from Lemburg. Encircled troops are too weak to break the encirclement, even when AH suffers from Italy debuff. 7. Rule the Waves Although weaker and being separated into 2, central navy can still do some easy tasks, such as protecting Norway convoys. After Russia surrenders, central navy can be more aggressive and sail into English channel to cut UK and France, disable their ability of aiding each other. If a channel is 2 or 3 tiles wide, it's a good idea to lay a mine. Enemy is dealt the damage unless reconned, while the channel is still navigable for minelayer. Yes, I am referring to Corfu and Smyrna. 8. Diplomacy convoys Among all convoys, Greece is the only 1 starting in favor of, but not join, entente. It's easy to diplomacy Greece to lean to central side to disable this convoy route. Then either invest all on Greece until it joins central, or separate some to protect Denmark convoy. Although starting at 0%, the same as Denmark, Norway doesn't need to be invested to protect convoy. UK's unrestricted naval warfare annoys Norway. 9. After Russia surrenders Among my playthroughs, I have seen once Russia collapses into 8 countries, and once Russia surrenders with entire territory occupied by Germany. There is no longer a target that requires all central troops (at least Germany and AH). Serbia is definitely 1 of the targets; maybe the next phase of war includes amphibious UK (sealion) or French Maghreb, but only 3 corps (1 from each central major) can embark, it's too slow. I don't want to invade Northern France, where there are UK and France troops.

Good game.

Great game

Das SC Spielprinzip versagt ihr etwas. Ein Sitzkrieg müsste man anderes simulieren. Man könnte zum Beispiel mit Einheiten Stacks arbeiten.

You cannot call up replay when you want it. It only plays at the beginning of the turn. And on a large map, it is hard to quickly see exactly which units are involved in the replay because the replay moves fast -- even when you specify slow replay.

Great Game

The game is okay... except it's set in one of the most boring periods in military history. It's fun at first, but as with the real war, it turns into a slow grind fest. The biggest problem with ALL of the SC games from Matrix is that you can't stack anything. It's amazing how a few squadrons of planes can take up an entire hex. Or only a single corps can occupy the same. It's the way these games are designed and I knew that going in. The A.I. seems to be the same as with the other SC games. It doesnt recognize strategic threats (like leaving gaping holes in the front.) The only saving grace here is you can't easily exploit them like you can in the WW2 period. However, the A.I. does use cavalry like tanks and can surprise you if you're not careful. I'll still give it a thumbs up. It's relatively bug-free, stable, and a history lesson for WW1.

Für Geschichts- und Strategieliebhaber dürfte dieses Spiel ein Prachtstück sein. Auf ebenso unterhaltsame wie lehrreiche Weise läßt es den Spieler in den ersten Weltkrieg eintauchen, durch die Anfangslage der Einheiten, Verlegungskosten u.s.w. fängt es die Situation des ersten Weltkriegs sehr gut ein. Außerdem beindruckt es durch ein interessantes Gameplay und viele Features.

This is a great historical simulation that allows each player to run an entire war - research, diplomacy, tactical battles on land and sea, strategic planning, etc.