I've been a long-time fan of OCS - played them all except Burma (don't own it) and Guderian's Blitzkrieg II (haven't cracked it open yet - but I will!). The OCS series is among my favorite wargames for WW2 operational systems. RE: Love/hate thing - I can guess. The individual games (esp. the campaigns) can be large and complex (but I would submit the rules and mechanics accomplish much complexity with a comparatively light rules set of approx. 40 pages plus 4 pages of game charts) and demands from the gamer a large time commitment, space to play (although PBEM is cool, too) as well as a worthy opponent to really enjoy the undertaking. The system requires a LOT of planning (some say micro-management), concentration and the ability to run the battle(s) at multiple levels: the tactical divisional/regimental level to achieve local objectives and terrain advantages, as well as the strategic level along the entire theatre to regulate the strategic tempo with reinforcements, reserves, supplies, air, etc. Each turn is a game in itself, starting with variable initiative and then the interactive nature of the three-parts of each half-turn: the phaing player's "regular movement and combat," then the interactive non-phasing player's "reaction phase" where the enemy gets a mini-turn for some of his pre-designated units (but with no set-piece combat, only overruns during his movement), then followed by the phasing player's final "exploitation phase" a mini-turn for some of his units that either gained exploitation status from superior combat results earlier in the regular combat segment or by releasing your own reserves at that point. No doubt I'm in the "love it" group, but I can definetely see inherent quirks/flaws in how the game system simulates (approximates?) certain battlefield effects like artillery, air superiority & ground support attacks, supply expenditure, etc. Many in the "hate it" group seize upon these and other issues, as well as the troop quality ("action rating") and surprise mechanic that can, on occasion, produce dramatic shifts in the typical or expected original combat odss during CRT resolution. Another common dislike is the use of slippery ZOCs - you can move and trace supply through ZOCs under conditions usually easily achieved. RE: DAK Italians in Mersa Matruh - I believe the DAK2 revised cross-Med shipping table cuts back on the inflated Italian strength at the beginning by putting a leash on how much supply they can get to their front (and hence limit their offensive). I have seen the Italians in original DAK1 deal-out some ahistorical punishment to the Brits - but through competent British play (and nothing too extreme coming from those surprise rolls) the Brits will still hold them off in DAK1 - often with the Italians left in a very sad state as a result of playing that aggressive role and thereby (likely) losing the few decent action rating units they have/had at start. RE: Scripted opening in Tunisia - I can see how one could develop that opinion because of the few units and the friction caused by their proximity and porous front lines at start. However, IMHO this game is much fun, has high replay value, presents difficult tactical and strategic choices and decisions (esp. for Axis player) and is a great intro to the system - and from volumes of posts on CSW and elsewhere many OCS gamers agree. RE: EFS or Triumphant Fox - don't have EFS but I do have the Moments in History stuff: TF, Piercing the Reich and Tunisia43. I think these are great games! Smaller maps, scale is most akin to OCS battles rather than full campaigns, quicker play and far less micro-management than OCS, but similar interactive turn sequence with variable initiative and reaction movement and combat, etc. Also importance of terrain and tactical considerations are very similar. Operational tempo is regulated not by micro-management of supplies as in OCS, but rather with available "activation points" that are diced for each turn based on the experience/strength of the combat formation (divisions, typically). Spend the action points in large denominations to set up big attacks (with multiple formations), or spend only a few points to move or attack with fewer units. The "surprise" mechanic for combat resolution is introduced by CRT modifying chit pulls that double or treble attack/defense strengths (not entirely dissimilar to OCS action rating/surprise rolls that shift CRT columns). Anyway - I could go on more. I'm enthusiastic about OCS and believe the system captures very well the WW2 operational level for the conflicts that the Gamers have designed so far. I would encourage anyone who prefers or has the inkling to try "big" operational WW2 games to give OCS a shot. The learning curve may seem daunting at first to some, but after a few plays the system and mechanics do get easier. The complexity comes from the size of the games and the number of options the players have, and from the decisions they make and the predicaments they are forced into by their opponent. OCS should consistently prove to be much fun and challenging to you at the same time. Adam, did I gather correctly somewhere that you were/are a Europa player. If you can handle Europa, you can do OCS - no problem! Let me know if you want to give OCS Tunisia a whirl PBEM. You can show me your script! Original Message: Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:07:15 -0400 From: "Adam Starkweather" Subject: RE: Re: "serious" games, again BTW - although not really by that way but it starts a new thread - what do you gamers that play OCS think of it? I have a love/hate relationship ith OCS. I love the system but it continues to disappoint me when I play it. I have tried DAK three times and each time it ends with Italians in Mersa (the only way the game dies). I tried GBII and that just had terrible problems (I can get more specific if there is interest). Burma was fun although I didn't get that far into it. Yet to try Hube's, Korea or Sicily seriously and Tunisia seems so scripted in the first few turns that I just pushed counters for a few turns and put it away. You guys that play it - or have tried it - what do you think? Compared to maybe EFS or Triumphant Fox series games? I love its potential but am just not sure of the game in play. Make any sense? Adam