Not a computer game!
 

The game is human vs human and is not a computer video or computer moderated game.

As to the earlier question of how an inferior force could win against a superior one, in my game, they just need one advantage more than the opponent.

The game brings in the randomness of human nature too. Put 14-20 people together on any project and you have a variety of knowledge and experience. Some will have read and understood the rules, some will skim, others will not fully grasp what they read.

Leaders can make doubtful plans, Operational commanders can be too cautious or too ambitious with their forces. Tactical officers can miss advantages they may use, again through human error.

Hitler didn't attack Britain but did attack Russia. Human decision making that resulted in a series of further blunders. No dice were used.

My apologies to those who like randomness but die rolling always seemed to take away the need for careful, thoughtful planning. It's like having a well thought out budget and then blowing it all at the craps table.

Reminds me of a board game 'Diplomacy' which was essentially the same as 'Risk' only without the (random) dice rolls. The way to beat an opposing army was to arrange political deals with other players to support your army in the action, thus overwhelming your opponent.

It used to take longer than 'Risk' to play as all moves happened simultaneously and had to be written down by each player before the move phase commenced.

It was also a really quick and efficient way to create bad feeling between close friends, when you agree to support them and then backstab them instead! Sheeesh! it's only a game! but it really used to feel personal I guess.

Happy New Year 2014
 

OK, it's 2014 now. I've just read through the thread. An update.

Last comment above this one: It isn't a computer game, but a game between and among players. There is randomness in the 'skills' brought to the table by players. For instance, you don't mention an advantage an opponent has. If he misses it when checking his setup - he will be short an advantage. Also, the skill is in setting up before battle so that you have all possible advantages, like in real life.
Anyway, folks, the 'game' has evolved into a game system of rules that allow linkage of existing board and/or miniatures play into one big war. The failures and successes have meaning beyond the current battle.

My apologies for being "thin skinned" about the earlier comments. Not everyone accepts new concepts without resistance.
This past year more than 2516 downloads of the rules have garnered only compliments - zero complaints. The rules are free.

I play a 3D airwar game using models on stands. Aircraft are defined by speed, climb rate, roll rate, turn rate, and is so well set up that you actually fly the plane through the maneuvers. If you outmaneuver the other guy and set up a shot, you still have to roll dice, for the simple reason that no matter how good you are (we do have plusses to the roll for aces) you can still miss. The guy taking the hits can survive multiple critical hits with no damage, or he can be killed on the first shot. Nothing is ever set in stone.

As someone once said, no battle plan ever survives first contact with the enemy.

[edit] That said, I'm reading the rules right now.

[edit 2] Okay, I've given the rules a going over (not in-depth, mind you), so my comments will be limited to observations.

Observation 1: You seem to boast a lot about how much better your game is than any others. That's fine, but when done within the rules themselves it's a bit of a turn-off. They are free, however, so that makes a difference.

Observation 2: Your game seems to rely a lot on abstracts. Actual combat is not reflected. It also seems to be mainly strategic, though some tactical components are involved, it seems to be mainly for the player who wants to be a world leader, not for the player who wants to be a pilot or command a ship. Nothing wrong with that, if that's what you're after. When you defend your concept you need to face the fact that your game is somewhat limited in scope, as are all games. You can't be all things to all players.

Opinion: Years ago I played World In Flames. In my opinion it is still the finest strategic WW2 game yet created. That said, I only played it once, because I've never wanted to be a world leader or even a general, and strategic games turn me off. As I said earlier, the kind of game that turns me on are the ones that put me on the bridge of a ship or in the cockpit of a fighter. I have to agree with what people said the last time around, which is that without some sort of true randomness, accounting for the fog of war, you can't properly represent the battlefield, or even the give-and-take of strategic warfare. No one person can ever be in control of everything involved. One look at Jutland, or the death of the Red Baron, should make that obvious.

I'm glad you have people downloading your game and playing it. I personally find no attraction in that sort of thing.

But that's just me.

Air War example
 

Hi Sailor Steve

I've seen those aircraft on stilts games. I think the latest was an Axis and Allies variant.

I was at a game convention last year where they were playing with planes on stands, some of them a couple of feet high. The game play area (map) was room sized.

I have Hornet Leader, Bloody April, Thunderbolt & Apache Leader, and B29 Superfortress -- all use cardboard counters.

Our game runs on stands six feet tall, with 1/72 scale models, and has been around for forty years.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...9&postcount=36

One AH game I always wanted to play was Jutland but you need a basketball court to play it properly I understand.