Dice based games and PC versions

[khosango]

so good .

[Bubbler]

I downloaded Dombrov PC and I dig it. It checks off a lot of boxes for my tastes.

1. You can manually input the dice roll. That’s big for me. Games like OOTP are amazing in their immersion, but you still have no idea when you’re playing how play results are determined. I’d rather have a chart where I know how the result is derived. (To be fair, Strat does have this feature too.)

2. It’s pretty customizable.

3. It’s not as deep as either Dynasty League or Strat, but it produces a realistic enough result. In both Dynasty League and Strat, despite both advertising how deep they are, there’s a lot of dice rolls that reach the same outcome, even with the 999 dice roll model Dynasty uses.

4. You can try the game out for free before you buy it. And not some cheapo, two-team version either. You get three full seasons (1970-72) and an all-time team. The free season downloads are available for use on the free version too. Not sure any of the other games offer that.

5. Most seasons of the past are available. Looks there’s a gap in the late 80s and 90s, but for the seasons that are there, you can set lineups by the day as they happened. That’s kind of fun. I could theoretically go back and play games I attended.

5. Most important? Unlike every single one of these other games, it’s economical. Full game costs $20. Only OOTP can compete with that, but it’s not based on a card-and-dice template.

I understand why Strat, Dynasty League, etc., charge high prices for single seasons. It’s proprietary and neither is a corporate conglomerate, but it gets to be a bit much. Dynasty League, in particular, is way too pricey, and while you get what you pay for, the prices it charges for a season set is pretty outrageous.

Strat charges $26 per season. Better than Dynasty, but still pretty high if you want to play multiple seasons.

[robrien13]

Strat O Matic charges more for individual seasons because of all the man hours they put into them. When you get Strat O Matic, I've always felt you are getting the most accurate game on the market, like a true scouting report of individual players. This is their sales pitch below.

HOW DOES YOUR GAME RATE?
It's a good question. Just how does the game you're currently playing rate their players? You see Strat-O-Matic issues realistic ratings for many more things besides fielding range (see below). Amongst the many categories that we individually research and rate are:
* Bunting ability - Jay Bell in one of the best bunters in baseball. If you desperately needed a sacrifice bunt to be laid down it's hard to think of another player you'd want up at bat instead of Bell. But his role changed in recent years and he hasn't been asked to bunt as much. As a result other games rated Bell as an Average or Poor bunter! That's because they rely solely on statistics when doing their ratings, and they do not account for the fact that Bell is still a great bunter when he's called upon to do the job. Strat-O-Matic gives Bell it's top rating because his ability to bunt hasn't diminished, only the number of times he's asked to bunt has. If you, as manager, want to bunt with Bell more frequently than his real life manager did you can, and you'll get very realistic results from doing so with our game.
* Hit and run ability - Many games don't bother rating players for this ability but it is an important ability that should be rated in all games. Hitting for a high average does not necessarily make you good at executing a hit and run, so exactly how do these other games decide who is good at the hit and run and who's lousy? Strat-O-Matic's rating is based upon detailed research (not just mathematical formula) so that you'll see a realistic portrayal of this skill when playing our game.
* Baserunning ability - Just having blazing speed doesn't make you a good baserunner. Instinct, baseball smarts and major league experience all go a long way towards the making of a good baserunner. Other games rate players based upon traditional speed categories such as stolen bases and triples. That's good for generalities, but systems like that break down when you get into specific cases. For instance, one of the best baserunners in the game is Paul Molitor. He was chosen as such in the August 1996 issue of Baseball America, and only the most casual fan wouldn't realize that Molitor is a great base runner. Yet our competitors like to rate Molitor as an average baserunner just because he doesn't hit a ton of triples or steal 50 bases. Another case where Strat-O-Matic will issue a superior rating that more accurately defines a player's abilities.
* Throwing arm - Sometimes players with terrible throwing arms can lead the league in outfield assists. That's because "everybody and their mother" is running on them, so sooner or later they're bound to get some assists. Of course their high assist total belies the fact that they hurt their team countless times by not being able to prevent a runner from scoring or advancing the extra base. Strat-O-Matic takes these factors into account when developing our throwing ratings.
* Lefty/righty adjustments - Louis Polonia hit .526 vs. left-handed pitching in 19 at-bats during 1996. Some of our competitors don't even bother rating players for lefty/righty ability so in their games Polonia will be given some kind of a "platoon rating" which has no basis in reality and actually makes him a better hitter against right-handed pitching! Not very realistic. Other competitors go awry just as far in the opposite direction and simply rate Polonia to hit .526 against lefties! Now isn't that realistic - to have a player on your bench who you know is going to hit .526 if your opponent dares bring in a lefty? Of course it's not - no major league manager ever has that kind of advantage (if they did you'd never see a left-handed pitcher come in against that team). So what to do with this situation? Clearly some common sense is in order. What Strat-O-Matic does in cases like this is research the batter's past three seasons and make an adjustment to his lefty/righty balance based upon the man's actual ability. Of course this, like all of the other ratings that we do, takes time and effort. And that's why the only place you'll find a realistic lefty/righty ratings is in the Strat-O-Matic game.
* Pull/opposite field hitting. We rate our players on many other factors such as groundball/flyball ratio and pull/opposite field hitting. Surprisingly some batters differ in their tendency to pull the ball on the ground vs. their tendency to pull the ball in the air. Strat-O-Matic rates these players properly so if they have a tendency to pull the ball on the ground but drive it in the air the other way they will be properly represented in our game.

Well, there is a great parallel here with the trouble our competitors have in the area of rating fielding abilities. You see when it comes to rating fielding ability they develop their own "speedometers" which are simply mathematical formulae utilizing fielding statistics. Or they use someone else's "speedometer" which might include range or zone factors. Once they have settled on which "speedometer" they are going to use they never question it again. Whatever that speedometer reads becomes, in their minds, the physical reality of the situation. But, unfortunately for them, the speedometer that they use can be wrong just as often as it is right. Imagine that -- imagine if the speedometer in your car was wrong just as often as it was right!

You see the people who work at Strat-O-Matic have been developing fielding ratings for over 35 years. Believe us, we have tried every speedometer out there. We have tried them individually. We have tried them in concert. We have tried developing our own. And after years of trying we have come to the sad conclusion that none of them are close to giving you a true feel for a player's fielding ability. Now why do I say "the sad conclusion"? I'll tell you why -- because unlike every other company out there we don't accept mediocrity when it comes to rating our players. So instead of using a faulty speedometer we opt to spend months of research in order to give you accurate fielding ratings. It's slow and painful research that keeps us burning the midnight oil. And it saddens our spouses greatly!

It's research that demands we spend countless hours reading scouting reports and newspaper accounts, sifting through boxscores, interviewing experts, comparing results and, yes looking at every statistical speedometer on the market (including some of our own). We have found that this is the only way you can consistently get good results when rating players' fielding abilities.

Now some people want to argue that Strat-O-Matic is wrong in this area, that we should just use the range rating or zone rating since these reflect the reality of the situation. Of course they completely ignore the fact that sometimes the range rating indicates that a player is great in the field while at the same time the zone rating indicates that he stinks! And, getting back to our analogy, it is sort of like arguing that you shouldn't worry about your car's speedometer. If it says you're going 65 you are going 65 mph. Forget the physical world that the speedometer is trying to measure -- that's meaningless. The reality is the speedometer.

An example will be necessary to explain this more clearly. Omar Vizquel has outstanding range and ability at short stop. Only those who have never seen the man play shortstop could possibly argue that he does not have great range and fielding ability. Yet the speedometers that our competitors use rates Omar Vizquel as an AVERAGE FIELDER!!! Now isn't this a ridiculous thing? Aren't they sitting in their car staring at the speedometer and insisting that they are traveling at 65 mph, when in fact they are barely moving at all? Do you really want to play a game that starts with the premise that Omar Vizquel is a mediocre fielder?

Think of this in terms of a player's true worth. Let's say you have a light hitting but great fielding shortstop. Now this man has value -- he is an outstanding shortstop. But let's say a game rates this guy as a poor fielding shortstop (and this often happens with our competitors' games). Now, based upon this faulty rating, what value does this shortstop have? Little if any. So, you see, this is a very important area we are concerned with here. This mistake has taken a player who could be considered a commodity in real life baseball, and turned him into a minor league reject. That is one reason why accurate fielding ratings are so important. And Strat-O-Matic is the only company dedicated enough to spend the time to give you the accuracy that you demand and deserve.

Now, let us take a detailed look at this problem. We'll try to draft a team of great defensive players from 2002 using the Strat-O-Matic game and one of our competitors who we'll call "DM".

POSITION PLAYER 2002 SOM RATING 2002 "DM" RATING
Catcher Bengie Molina Outstanding Fair
First Baseman J.T. Snow Outstanding Average
Second Baseman Brett Boone Outstanding Average
Short Stop Omar Vizquel Outstanding Average
Third Baseman Eric Chavez Outstanding Very Good
Left Fielder Darren Lewis Outstanding Average
Center Fielder Jim Edmonds Outstanding Average
Right Fielder Larry Walker Outstanding Very Good

Looking at this list one can quickly determine that if you put together this team in real-life they might be the greatest defensive team off all time. Imagine having a gold-glover at every position! Similarly, the Strat-O-Matic version of this defensive unit is going to be just as outstanding. However, using competitor DM this team would be a mediocre defensive team - and anyone who knows baseball can easily see just how ridiculous this is.

Even Atlanta's Andruw Jones and Minnesota's Torii Hunter don't get the top rating in the DM game! Is Andruw Jones really only slightly better than Chipper Jones in the outfield?! And is Doug Glanville really a below average fielder? Come on!!!

Having such an unrealistic rating system detracts so badly from this competitors product that it can make playing their game a pointless exercise. In this case it's sort of like starting up an F-14 flight simulator that you discover handles more like a Sopwith Camel once you get it off the ground!

A similar list can be developed with any of our competitors products because no other company spends the time and effort to give you accurate fielding ratings the way that Strat-O-Matic does. It would probably be better off if they didn't bother trying to rate players defensively than to offer a fatally flawed system like the one you see exposed above.

Perhaps Peter Gammons said it best when in the April 27th, 1997 issue of Baseball America he said "Maybe the computer people should watch Roberto Alomar instead of running programs. Alomar is the best defensive second baseman of the modern era. He makes the most brilliant, far-ranging and creative plays to his right of any second baseman. Yet some computer printout says he doesn't get to enough balls to his right. Who does? Wil Cordero? There never has been a valid way to evaluate range statistically."

In summary, let us submit to you that the true measure of a baseball simulation might best be summed up with the following test: Does every player in the simulation perform statistically like he does in real life and does he have approximately the same value in the simulation that he has in real life? If so then that truly is a good simulation of baseball, one that generates results that might possibly occur in a real life season. It's a tough standard to stack yourself up against. You've got to properly rate every player in numerous categories including hitting, fielding, baserunning, bunting, hit and run, stealing, throwing, clutch ability, etc. You've got to rate every pitcher in many categories including what he gives up (singles, doubles, triples, home runs, walks, strikeouts, double play grounders, etc.) You've got to rate the stadiums properly for ballpark and weather effects. And you can't take any short cuts - each rating must properly describe the real-life ability or you fall short of the standard. Well, as you probably realize now, there is only one baseball simulation that even dare claim it can measure up to that tough a standard. And, we're proud to say, that game is called "Strat-O-Matic Baseball" - truly the most statistically accurate and most realistic representation of baseball on the market.

I have played them all (including OOTP Baseball). I've run multiple seasons to authenticate accuracy, and Strat O Matic is the best. Don't be fooled by games that include past seasons at cheap prices. You get what you pay for, inaccurate seasons on the cheap.

[OReilly10]

My father got me an APBA game and the 1987 season for my birthday. He has played almost every table top game from CFL homemade stuff to seasons of Strat o Matic.

I have always typically been a Strat o Matic guy. When I was a kid, I got into a Pursue the Pennant game which is now called Dynasty Baseball. I have tinkered with OOTP as well.

Playing APBA, I feel detached from the cards and players. Getting numbers off the cards and referring to the charts IMO takes away from the players. I also am used to about 50% of the results coming off the pitcher's cards. In APBA, its much less and it feels like pitchers have less influence on the game. You also have team defense, not so much individual. I am going to keep at it a bit to see if I can get more enjoyment out of it. Im not really feeling it though.

Strat o matic is great because the play readings are directly off the cards. Players are much more individual. They have their own fielding, bunting, hit and run, stealing, running, arm, etc abilities, even in the basic version.

[bkrich83]

Quote: Originally Posted by robrien13

Strat O Matic charges more for individual seasons because of all the man hours they put into them. When you get Strat O Matic, I've always felt you are getting the most accurate game on the market, like a true scouting report of individual players. This is their sales pitch below. HOW DOES YOUR GAME RATE? It's a good question. Just how does the game you're currently playing rate their players? You see Strat-O-Matic issues realistic ratings for many more things besides fielding range (see below). Amongst the many categories that we individually research and rate are: * Bunting ability - Jay Bell in one of the best bunters in baseball. If you desperately needed a sacrifice bunt to be laid down it's hard to think of another player you'd want up at bat instead of Bell. But his role changed in recent years and he hasn't been asked to bunt as much. As a result other games rated Bell as an Average or Poor bunter! That's because they rely solely on statistics when doing their ratings, and they do not account for the fact that Bell is still a great bunter when he's called upon to do the job. Strat-O-Matic gives Bell it's top rating because his ability to bunt hasn't diminished, only the number of times he's asked to bunt has. If you, as manager, want to bunt with Bell more frequently than his real life manager did you can, and you'll get very realistic results from doing so with our game. * Hit and run ability - Many games don't bother rating players for this ability but it is an important ability that should be rated in all games. Hitting for a high average does not necessarily make you good at executing a hit and run, so exactly how do these other games decide who is good at the hit and run and who's lousy? Strat-O-Matic's rating is based upon detailed research (not just mathematical formula) so that you'll see a realistic portrayal of this skill when playing our game. * Baserunning ability - Just having blazing speed doesn't make you a good baserunner. Instinct, baseball smarts and major league experience all go a long way towards the making of a good baserunner. Other games rate players based upon traditional speed categories such as stolen bases and triples. That's good for generalities, but systems like that break down when you get into specific cases. For instance, one of the best baserunners in the game is Paul Molitor. He was chosen as such in the August 1996 issue of Baseball America, and only the most casual fan wouldn't realize that Molitor is a great base runner. Yet our competitors like to rate Molitor as an average baserunner just because he doesn't hit a ton of triples or steal 50 bases. Another case where Strat-O-Matic will issue a superior rating that more accurately defines a player's abilities. * Throwing arm - Sometimes players with terrible throwing arms can lead the league in outfield assists. That's because "everybody and their mother" is running on them, so sooner or later they're bound to get some assists. Of course their high assist total belies the fact that they hurt their team countless times by not being able to prevent a runner from scoring or advancing the extra base. Strat-O-Matic takes these factors into account when developing our throwing ratings. * Lefty/righty adjustments - Louis Polonia hit .526 vs. left-handed pitching in 19 at-bats during 1996. Some of our competitors don't even bother rating players for lefty/righty ability so in their games Polonia will be given some kind of a "platoon rating" which has no basis in reality and actually makes him a better hitter against right-handed pitching! Not very realistic. Other competitors go awry just as far in the opposite direction and simply rate Polonia to hit .526 against lefties! Now isn't that realistic - to have a player on your bench who you know is going to hit .526 if your opponent dares bring in a lefty? Of course it's not - no major league manager ever has that kind of advantage (if they did you'd never see a left-handed pitcher come in against that team). So what to do with this situation? Clearly some common sense is in order. What Strat-O-Matic does in cases like this is research the batter's past three seasons and make an adjustment to his lefty/righty balance based upon the man's actual ability. Of course this, like all of the other ratings that we do, takes time and effort. And that's why the only place you'll find a realistic lefty/righty ratings is in the Strat-O-Matic game. * Pull/opposite field hitting. We rate our players on many other factors such as groundball/flyball ratio and pull/opposite field hitting. Surprisingly some batters differ in their tendency to pull the ball on the ground vs. their tendency to pull the ball in the air. Strat-O-Matic rates these players properly so if they have a tendency to pull the ball on the ground but drive it in the air the other way they will be properly represented in our game. Well, there is a great parallel here with the trouble our competitors have in the area of rating fielding abilities. You see when it comes to rating fielding ability they develop their own "speedometers" which are simply mathematical formulae utilizing fielding statistics. Or they use someone else's "speedometer" which might include range or zone factors. Once they have settled on which "speedometer" they are going to use they never question it again. Whatever that speedometer reads becomes, in their minds, the physical reality of the situation. But, unfortunately for them, the speedometer that they use can be wrong just as often as it is right. Imagine that -- imagine if the speedometer in your car was wrong just as often as it was right! You see the people who work at Strat-O-Matic have been developing fielding ratings for over 35 years. Believe us, we have tried every speedometer out there. We have tried them individually. We have tried them in concert. We have tried developing our own. And after years of trying we have come to the sad conclusion that none of them are close to giving you a true feel for a player's fielding ability. Now why do I say "the sad conclusion"? I'll tell you why -- because unlike every other company out there we don't accept mediocrity when it comes to rating our players. So instead of using a faulty speedometer we opt to spend months of research in order to give you accurate fielding ratings. It's slow and painful research that keeps us burning the midnight oil. And it saddens our spouses greatly! It's research that demands we spend countless hours reading scouting reports and newspaper accounts, sifting through boxscores, interviewing experts, comparing results and, yes looking at every statistical speedometer on the market (including some of our own). We have found that this is the only way you can consistently get good results when rating players' fielding abilities. Now some people want to argue that Strat-O-Matic is wrong in this area, that we should just use the range rating or zone rating since these reflect the reality of the situation. Of course they completely ignore the fact that sometimes the range rating indicates that a player is great in the field while at the same time the zone rating indicates that he stinks! And, getting back to our analogy, it is sort of like arguing that you shouldn't worry about your car's speedometer. If it says you're going 65 you are going 65 mph. Forget the physical world that the speedometer is trying to measure -- that's meaningless. The reality is the speedometer. An example will be necessary to explain this more clearly. Omar Vizquel has outstanding range and ability at short stop. Only those who have never seen the man play shortstop could possibly argue that he does not have great range and fielding ability. Yet the speedometers that our competitors use rates Omar Vizquel as an AVERAGE FIELDER!!! Now isn't this a ridiculous thing? Aren't they sitting in their car staring at the speedometer and insisting that they are traveling at 65 mph, when in fact they are barely moving at all? Do you really want to play a game that starts with the premise that Omar Vizquel is a mediocre fielder? Think of this in terms of a player's true worth. Let's say you have a light hitting but great fielding shortstop. Now this man has value -- he is an outstanding shortstop. But let's say a game rates this guy as a poor fielding shortstop (and this often happens with our competitors' games). Now, based upon this faulty rating, what value does this shortstop have? Little if any. So, you see, this is a very important area we are concerned with here. This mistake has taken a player who could be considered a commodity in real life baseball, and turned him into a minor league reject. That is one reason why accurate fielding ratings are so important. And Strat-O-Matic is the only company dedicated enough to spend the time to give you the accuracy that you demand and deserve. Now, let us take a detailed look at this problem. We'll try to draft a team of great defensive players from 2002 using the Strat-O-Matic game and one of our competitors who we'll call "DM". POSITION PLAYER 2002 SOM RATING 2002 "DM" RATING Catcher Bengie Molina Outstanding Fair First Baseman J.T. Snow Outstanding Average Second Baseman Brett Boone Outstanding Average Short Stop Omar Vizquel Outstanding Average Third Baseman Eric Chavez Outstanding Very Good Left Fielder Darren Lewis Outstanding Average Center Fielder Jim Edmonds Outstanding Average Right Fielder Larry Walker Outstanding Very Good Looking at this list one can quickly determine that if you put together this team in real-life they might be the greatest defensive team off all time. Imagine having a gold-glover at every position! Similarly, the Strat-O-Matic version of this defensive unit is going to be just as outstanding. However, using competitor DM this team would be a mediocre defensive team - and anyone who knows baseball can easily see just how ridiculous this is. Even Atlanta's Andruw Jones and Minnesota's Torii Hunter don't get the top rating in the DM game! Is Andruw Jones really only slightly better than Chipper Jones in the outfield?! And is Doug Glanville really a below average fielder? Come on!!! Having such an unrealistic rating system detracts so badly from this competitors product that it can make playing their game a pointless exercise. In this case it's sort of like starting up an F-14 flight simulator that you discover handles more like a Sopwith Camel once you get it off the ground! A similar list can be developed with any of our competitors products because no other company spends the time and effort to give you accurate fielding ratings the way that Strat-O-Matic does. It would probably be better off if they didn't bother trying to rate players defensively than to offer a fatally flawed system like the one you see exposed above. Perhaps Peter Gammons said it best when in the April 27th, 1997 issue of Baseball America he said "Maybe the computer people should watch Roberto Alomar instead of running programs. Alomar is the best defensive second baseman of the modern era. He makes the most brilliant, far-ranging and creative plays to his right of any second baseman. Yet some computer printout says he doesn't get to enough balls to his right. Who does? Wil Cordero? There never has been a valid way to evaluate range statistically." In summary, let us submit to you that the true measure of a baseball simulation might best be summed up with the following test: Does every player in the simulation perform statistically like he does in real life and does he have approximately the same value in the simulation that he has in real life? If so then that truly is a good simulation of baseball, one that generates results that might possibly occur in a real life season. It's a tough standard to stack yourself up against. You've got to properly rate every player in numerous categories including hitting, fielding, baserunning, bunting, hit and run, stealing, throwing, clutch ability, etc. You've got to rate every pitcher in many categories including what he gives up (singles, doubles, triples, home runs, walks, strikeouts, double play grounders, etc.) You've got to rate the stadiums properly for ballpark and weather effects. And you can't take any short cuts - each rating must properly describe the real-life ability or you fall short of the standard. Well, as you probably realize now, there is only one baseball simulation that even dare claim it can measure up to that tough a standard. And, we're proud to say, that game is called "Strat-O-Matic Baseball" - truly the most statistically accurate and most realistic representation of baseball on the market. I have played them all (including OOTP Baseball). I've run multiple seasons to authenticate accuracy, and Strat O Matic is the best. Don't be fooled by games that include past seasons at cheap prices. You get what you pay for, inaccurate seasons on the cheap.

Problem with Strat is the PC game from a UI/Options standpoint nothing has really changed much in a decade. Game interface feels so 2001. So many limitations, the licensing is a pain in the ***, and I think the game engine itself is starting to show it's age.

I've been playing Strat games since the early 80's but the notion they are head and shoulders above the others, especially in the PC conversion of Dice/Card games I just can't get onboard with.

[Sportsforever]

Quote: Originally Posted by bkrich83

Problem with Strat is the PC game from a UI/Options standpoint nothing has really changed much in a decade. Game interface feels so 2001. So many limitations, the licensing is a pain in the ***, and I think the game engine itself is starting to show it's age. I've been playing Strat games since the early 80's but the notion they are head and shoulders above the others, especially in the PC conversion of Dice/Card games I just can't get onboard with.

Yep - IMO, SOM's strength isn't technology. As you mentioned, the PC games are all dated; I think 2001 is generous...there is probably some 1990s feel there.

To me SOM's strength is the research they do into their season sets, the playability of their board game, and the number of older seasons they offer. I have roughly 45 SOM card sets including the HOF sets, the Heroes sets, and nearly all of the "retro" sets and they are a blast. Very cool to bust out 1911 and play with Ty Cobb or the Giants who ran like crazy, 1920 and that awesome Ruth card, 1934 and the Gashouse Gang, 1941 and Joe D/Teddy Ballgame, 1948/49 with the Cardinals/Dodgers and Jackie, etc. That is where SOM really shines...

[OReilly10]

Quote: Originally Posted by Sportsforever

Yep - IMO, SOM's strength isn't technology. As you mentioned, the PC games are all dated; I think 2001 is generous...there is probably some 1990s feel there. To me SOM's strength is the research they do into their season sets, the playability of their board game, and the number of older seasons they offer. I have roughly 45 SOM card sets including the HOF sets, the Heroes sets, and nearly all of the "retro" sets and they are a blast. Very cool to bust out 1911 and play with Ty Cobb or the Giants who ran like crazy, 1920 and that awesome Ruth card, 1934 and the Gashouse Gang, 1941 and Joe D/Teddy Ballgame, 1948/49 with the Cardinals/Dodgers and Jackie, etc. That is where SOM really shines...

I agree with you and the previous post. SOM puts so little effort into improving their product(s). It is the weakness of the company, and will doom it out of existence at some point. The other sports' CPU versions are even more primitive than the Baseball one.

Im not talking graphics or animations or anything either. Wouldn't be hard to add sound effect slots though for presentation. The interface is shot though. Everything is not very user friendly. Same thing year to year. I want some more options on manual input/dice input but it never improves.

As far as a realistic representation of Stock-Replays, as well as the best/smoothest tabletop play, SOM is the best by far. As a company though they fall short. Whether its the marriage to the Windows 95 Computer games, or charging me $12 to ship a set of cards and them arriving damaged in a soft mailer that is half ripped open (happens often).

[57oceanlover]

Question about Action PC BB, Can you run a cpu vs cpu game? Are there any issues about the game? Thanks...