similar games

[spinecruncher]

I think I am in love with COTA and HTTR. does someone know if there are other similar type games to these out there somewhere (realtime operational)? thanks!

[JeF]

ballyho,

your question belongs to the standard forum, not support.

Anyhow, as far as I know, the serie is pretty much alone in this market segment.
On smaller scale, mostly modern and lacking a decent UI, you have the Armoured Task Force serie (published by Shrapnel Games).
For American Civil War, there is now Take Command (by Mad Minute Games). Inspired by SM:Gettysburg, 3D environment, but not the same level of control of your troops than COTA for example.
Totally strategic, and real time you have Hearts of Iron (distributed by Paradox Interactive, along with Take Command BTW).

It's all of what I can think about right now.

I hope this helps,

JeF.

[AlexB]

How about Company of Heroes? Has anybody tried that yet? As what I've read about it, it looks completely different from COTA, but I've noticed it does implement stuff like supply lines...

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: AlexB

How about Company of Heroes? Has anybody tried that yet? As what I've read about it, it looks completely different from COTA, but I've noticed it does implement stuff like supply lines...

No, no, no, no, no......

COTA and Company f Heroes are completely different. one is a historical RTS , the other is an RTS game with a very "loose" historical theme.

Seriously. COTA is in a league of it's own as far as properly simulating the command structure of WWII goes. Company of Heroes has the graphics nailed down, and the game is a good game. But for hard core "Was this what it was like for Patton" gaming, COTA is the one.

I have both, and they are both great games in there own little ways, but completely different.

[AlexB]

I had gathered they are completely different, but I was wondering if COTA players also enjoy playing CoH, or that they kinda look down on it because not tactical enough...

[JudgeDredd]

Oh...sorry for missing the point of your post.
 
As for me, and you may have gathered from my post, I enjoy both very much....COTA for planning and a hard fight...COH for fun.

[MarkShot]

I am sorry, but I am going to have to disaggree that there is much a similarity between RDOA/HTTR/COTA and CWBR/TC2M from MMG. Personally, I originally thought there was. But after looking at both the systems carefully, they are in only similar in concept, but entirely different in their realization. (This is besides the obvious differences of period and 3D.)

CONCEPT = Hierachical chain of command with a high level AI used for both the OPFOR and for the player to which tasks can be delegated.

REALITY = CWBR/TC2M scenarios are entirely scripted affairs that specify the time, place, action and more of practically every unit in the scenario. The player lives in and impacts a small bubble of free will which exists around him. The scenarios are excellent and many players do, in fact, confuse this as being the series' AI engine, but it is not. RDOA/HTTR/COTA scenario are mainly collections of units and objectives with locations, types, and point values. When the enemy and your subordinates actually do an RDOA/HTTR/COTA scenario is a function of the game engine's built-in AI; there is no scripting or pupeteer behind the curtain. The smarts are in the engine as opposed to in the scenarios. A very significant and fundamental difference.

[DSwain]

I'd say there are some similiarites with the Combat Mission series of games; similar scale, concentration on operational level warfare but obvious differences between 2d and 3d (NB I think COTA has it right with 2d, though Combat Missions is enjoyable in its own way)

[JeF]

@DSwain
Similar scale ? A CM map is at most 3x3km (except for operations) while cota can be 40x50km. A CM unit is a squad/team/individual vehicle, while COTA's unit are companies. CM is a pure tactical game.
Moreover, CM is not continuous time.

I also enjoy CM and like the simultaneous turn concepts. But these are totally different games.

@MarkShot
Thanks for the info regarding TC2M. I had only played the demo and felt a bit unconfortable with it. Now I see why. Graphically impressive though.

JeF.

[El Savior]

AA-series is a rare shining gem. That's what I think. AI is the most advanced I have ever seen and how game simulate chain of command is absolutely brilliant. Now when I play other games I notice thinking how it could be improved if it uses even some features from COTA. Then I notice myself getting back to play COTA or HTTR. [:D]

[Crimguy]

I'm a big fan of TC2M.  Lots of fun, but the AI is predictable after a spell.

On a pure turn-based front, I've been toying with Birth of America.  Not exactly grog level, but a lot of fun and a bit of a challenge.  Nice change of pace.

COTA's AI is so much better than the rest.  Tough to match.

[Robin le guetteur]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy

On a pure turn-based front, I've been toying with Birth of America. Not exactly grog level, but a lot of fun and a bit of a challenge. Nice change of pace.

COTA's AI is so much better than the rest. Tough to match.

Good choice to play with birth of America, and our goal was effectively to make an easy to access" game, even if, of course, it's a bit harder to master. As artisitic Director and as gamer, you won't be surprised if I say that I take real pleasure while playing with BoA.

In addition, I am fond of Panther's game since the first release of RDoA. My article on the last issue of Cyberstratèges, with a final note of 9/10 can prove how much I like that game. And, even if some people are very critics about the difficulty level of CoTA, I am enthousisast at each scenario I play. Perhaps because I play only long scenarios...

But I can't let you say that AI in COTA is much better than in BoA. It's not the same kind of game nor the same kind of AI, scenarios, mecanisms, etc. . And the reviews are almost all agree to recognize that the AI of BoA is very excellent, surprising, and challenging. Not necessary for a "real grognard", but enough to bring real pleasure during the game.

[;)]

[Crimguy]

Your game cheats - it pauses for turns [;)]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Crimguy
Your game cheats - it pauses for turns [;)]

Reculer pour mieux sauter [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[MarkShot]

Hmm ... your French has got me intrigued?

"fallback for better _____" what's sauter?

Thanks.

[MarkShot]

PS: Robin, I am still waiting for the French language magazines in the postal mail of your COTA articles.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Hmm ... your French has got me intrigued?

"fallback for better _____" what's sauter?

Literally : to jump

The expression is used to express a "temporary fallback to better be able to advance" - it's almost always used in a joking way and was a comment on the fact the BoA game is turn-based and "using pauses to think" quip made a bit higher up in the thread. In French because Robin is French etc.

Before it gets too complicated :

http://www.bartleby.com/81/14132.html

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[sterckxe]

Also,

I see that I haven't commented yet in this thread regarding the OP question.

The only engine that is really similar to the Panther Games one is the ATF/AATF one by ProsimCo

- Pausable continuous time movement
- no hexes, just a map
- command hierarchy where you order units which in turn create orders for their subordinates, with a possibility to micro-manage if so desired
- command delay, waypoints, los, ...

Differences : the scale : ATF/AATF are basically tactical engines and historical setting : ATF/AATF are modern instead of WWII

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Robin le guetteur]

"Tu perds rien pour attendre, Eddy..."

Well, about similar game, I must say that first time I discover RDoA, I found the same feeling that whith the famous Gettysburg of Sid meier : real time and no hexagones, no need to manipulate each unit as giving orders to each generals was enough to have good results, no need to indicate wich unit to fire on as the units decide wich target and when to fire by themselves, importance of moral and other characteristics like ground, proximity or not of friendly units, etc.
In fact, this Gettsyburg was for me a real "coup de foudre" and RDoA was a real "thunder clap"...
[&o]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Robin le guetteur
"Tu perds rien pour attendre, Eddy..."

Says you - but you also know what game I'm waiting for ... [;)]

ORIGINAL: Robin le guetteur
Well, about similar game, I must say that first time I discover RDoA, I found the same feeling that whith the famous Gettysburg of Sid meier : real time and no hexagones, no need to manipulate each unit as giving orders to each generals was enough to have good results, no need to indicate wich unit to fire on as the units decide wich target and when to fire by themselves, importance of moral and other characteristics like ground, proximity or not of friendly units, etc.
In fact, this Gettsyburg was for me a real "coup de foudre" and RDoA was a real "thunder clap"...
[&o]

Agreed, but I thought the OP meant current games on the market.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx