Commander SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!

[Syagrius]

This guy (first poster) is just bragging...playing with FOW and Oil with slight advantage to Allies and the game is for sure challenging for me.

[DBeves]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

No one would call Chess to be dumbed down despite very small board and very simple rules. Despite no economy, diplomacy, building, research chess is a classic game that no one really masters despite a small 8x8=64 square board.

Well yes ... A classic "game" - but one as a representation of real world problems and history - which as a wargamer is what I want - and what defines my hobby - I have an utter lack of interest in playing ... what worked a couple of thousand years ago doesnt now - cant think anyone would seriously code a game know where cavalry could only move two spaces forward and one sideways ... comparisons for effect have to be made between things which bear at least a passing resemblance to each other

[gmothes]

Yes, increase the difficulty level and the game is quite challenging.  I do agree though that we need to see more allied activity in the Med Theater.  There are some other features I would like to see added, but all in all, I am satisfied with the game.

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

We're happy to listen to all feedback - good and bad

Well...then let me say that I love the basic look and feel of the game. I even like
the AI. It can put up a good fight at times.

The game seems to have a lot of potential and I'm sure with some tweaking and
some optional rules it will steadily get more interesting. It is already very entertaining.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

It's not dumbed down, it is just the way the difficulty settings are labelled. We're not talking about casual gamers - we're talking about average gamers who used to buy these type of games like Panzer General.

Ok, I guess we are not communicating here. I thought you were the one who made the reference to casual gamers. Casual gamers bought Panzer General because they saw it on the shelves in major retail stores. Unless you plan to market a game by placing it on the shelves of major retail outlets casual gamers are not ever likely to even learn of it's existence. If it is only available and marketed through dedicated wargame websites then the likely target market is going to be gamers with a distinctly "wargame" bent. That's all I was trying to say.

[IainMcNeil]

Casual gamers dont even go in to stores - we're talking about more casual than hardcore wargamers. I think the problem is that some people are expecting the game to be more hardcore than it is. It's not because we forgot to put these features in or didn't get time. We deliberately abstracted a lot of things to keep the pace of the game quick and approachable.
 
I look at most wargames these days and lose interest in the first 5 minutes because you cant just pick them up and play them anymore - you need to invest so much time in them to get anything back and I simply dont have the time to give. This is where the comparisons to Panzer General kick in - you could just pick it up and play it and it was fun. No manual required though it was there if you wanted to know how thins worked under the hood.
 
Far too many wargamers have become elitist and put down anything that does model every simgle factor during the war and this encourages developers to over complicate their games, alienating the average gamers. Then they complain that the hobby is stagnating and about the price of games! We aim to reverse that with approachable strategy games that are fun, interesting and hopefully sell to a wider audience!

[Paul Vebber]

Well said Iain - and another point about "casual" gamers is a lot of them are kids - my daughter being one of them.

She liked the game a lot and has learned a lot about simple things like geography and the general course of events in the war by playing and asking me questions about it. She "Cut her teeth" on Attack and wanted to try "one of those ones with the hexagon maps"... THis fit the bill perfectly...

Any more complexity in options and "things to do" (or being much harder on "normal") and she would have never given it a second look.

As a vehicle to introduce kids to "real warames" we desperately need "lite" titles like this!

I'm sure it will only get better!

[HansBolter]

If you two guys make an effort to get the chips off your shoulders we might have a chance at some worthwhile discourse here.

I can appreciate that you are feeling a little "put upon" by the rather harsh criticism coming down from the hardcore gamers here, but a little less "bristling" under the strain of that criticism would go a long way.

I have not criticized the game for it's "lite" approach, in fact if you read my comments in the partisan thread, you will find me arging in the opposite direction. I was merely trying to point out the potential pitfall of making "normal" mode "introductory" mode!

[x0r]

I am a casual gamer and have tried some "harder" games but did not got into them. I save them for later when I have more time. This game though is great for me. Must be, cant stop playing [:D]. Hmmm, how about not having time? [;)]

Eventually I get more hooked and try the other games aswell. Beware! [:D]

Looking forward to a game like this one that covers the whole globe.

[8D]

/X

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: DBeves

Why people still come to forums such as these and rant on about AI - when its something no - one - even with vast resources - can program to any kind of acceptable level baffles me. I really do wish that people would take current AI standards for what they are - which is nothing more than a useful learning tool ...

I wish more people would moan about AI more often, in more forums. That way it might improve. I understand it's hard to do a good AI, especially for a strategic game, but many developers don't spend enough time on this aspect.

I imagine you play online/PBEM mostly? If so, you, like many, don't really care about the AI.. and seem quite happy to post on forums about how it's only ever going to useful as a learning tool, but lots of people - probably the majority - still play solely against the AI and, if it's done well, have a lot of fun doing so.

Having a game with no AI, or a bad AI, forces people to either play with a friend who shares their interest (which for many doesn't exist), or go trawling online for an opponent who may end up being unsuitable for a variety of reasons. This will only make niche wargames even more grognardy and less appealing to many people in my opinion.

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

ORIGINAL: apathetic lurker

ORIGINAL: LitFuel

Actually I think you pout like my daughter did when she was seven...

Actually I haven't pouted since they ran out of barbeque wings and vodka at the Anchor bar

I didn't mean you, I ment the first post...running out of wings and vodka is a good enough reason for me to pout...

I figure it was aimed at me since you replied to my post..

[themattcurtis]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

If you two guys make an effort to get the chips off your shoulders we might have a chance at some worthwhile discourse here.

I can appreciate that you are feeling a little "put upon" by the rather harsh criticism coming down from the hardcore gamers here, but a little less "bristling" under the strain of that criticism would go a long way.

I have not criticized the game for it's "lite" approach, in fact if you read my comments in the partisan thread, you will find me arging in the opposite direction. I was merely trying to point out the potential pitfall of making "normal" mode "introductory" mode!

I didn't read the posts as they have chips on their shoulders. Or that they bristled.

A comment was made, and they responded.

I tend to doubt on the side of developers, as I like to give the benefit of the doubt. And if folks DO get a little defensive on these forums, I think there's ample cause when half the criticisms posted on the boards include words like ridiculous, or accusations that playtesters neglected the game...all backed by smilies like dees one here [8|]

Hell, look at the post that even started this thread. There was an effort made to acknowledge the guy's comments (a guy with 1 post to date to his credit), and all I saw in there was someone acting like a troll.

Constructive criticism should be offered with the outlook that the developers might actually hit back a little re: the decisions that went into the time they spent creating the thing in the first place.

[targul]

"I wish more people would moan about AI more often, in more forums. That way it might improve. I understand it's hard to do a good AI, especially for a strategic game, but many developers don't spend enough time on this aspect.

I imagine you play online/PBEM mostly? If so, you, like many, don't really care about the AI.. and seem quite happy to post on forums about how it's only ever going to useful as a learning tool, but lots of people - probably the majority - still play solely against the AI and, if it's done well, have a lot of fun doing so.

Having a game with no AI, or a bad AI, forces people to either play with a friend who shares their interest (which for many doesn't exist), or go trawling online for an opponent who may end up being unsuitable for a variety of reasons. This will only make niche wargames even more grognardy and less appealing to many people in my opinion."
 
AI is okay to play if you cant find a real person or the game supports ahistorical play but as a history buff in these games I find best games are against real people who take real actions.  AI will never reach the quality of play of human.  Computers do not have brains the can never be a better player then the programmer.
 
When I do wish to play AI I play SC2 since it has really good AI.

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: targul

"I wish more people would moan about AI more often, in more forums. That way it might improve. I understand it's hard to do a good AI, especially for a strategic game, but many developers don't spend enough time on this aspect.

I imagine you play online/PBEM mostly? If so, you, like many, don't really care about the AI.. and seem quite happy to post on forums about how it's only ever going to useful as a learning tool, but lots of people - probably the majority - still play solely against the AI and, if it's done well, have a lot of fun doing so.

Having a game with no AI, or a bad AI, forces people to either play with a friend who shares their interest (which for many doesn't exist), or go trawling online for an opponent who may end up being unsuitable for a variety of reasons. This will only make niche wargames even more grognardy and less appealing to many people in my opinion."

AI is okay to play if you cant find a real person or the game supports ahistorical play but as a history buff in these games I find best games are against real people who take real actions. AI will never reach the quality of play of human. Computers do not have brains the can never be a better player then the programmer.

When I do wish to play AI I play SC2 since it has really good AI.

I don't disagree that a human will play a better game and provide more of a challenge. It will probably remain that way for a long, long time. That's no excuse not to TRY to develop a better AI though.

As to historical/ahistorical. I find most of the games I've played against human opposition (admittedly not many) have been far less historical than games played against the AI. Another 'plus' for having an AI is it tends to be programmed to behave more or less historically.. where as many human opponents will try things that weren't done and often couldn't be done in real life.

Of course if you have an opponent who you know, and you know plays in a way you enjoy playing against then that's great [:)]

[IrishGuards]

Can I be a Hero to pls .. I can play .. [&o]
And what is this SC I keep hearing about .. [8|]
IDG

[Warfare1]

I also prefer to play against the AI. Provided a game has good editors, then I can usually tweak the scenarios to provide myself with some challenging play. I don't mind taking the extra time to tweak a scenario to get that challenge.

I have read AARs on other forums for other wargames, where the players make such gamey moves that it no longer resembles any wargame I am familiar with. [8|]

[Warfare1]

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

Can I be a Hero to pls .. I can play .. [&o]
And what is this SC I keep hearing about .. [8|]
IDG

SC means Strategic Command.

It's a turn based game of WWII in the European theater. Not a bad game, and it doesn't have the problems that CEaW currently suffers from.

It's very inexpensive right now (under $10.00) and makes for a great game to play on the laptop.

[Duck Doc]

As a lurker I want to say I think Ian McNeil & Johan Perrson should get a medal for how they deal with criticism of this game. It is & was obvious that this game is a labor of love by Johan & nurtured to life by Slitherine & I think the gaming world is a whole lot richer for the all the hard work it took to bring the game into being.

I am also reminded of what Sid Meier said when somebody criticized one of his games (caution, this may be apocryphal). He said & I paraphrase, "Fine. If you think you can do a better job then get a C++ manual & have at it."

There isn't an artificial intelligence yet that will play like a human player in games of this complexity at our level on the retail market. Nothing exceeds another human for an opponent.

Commander is a fantastic game concept & it is a product still under development. Anybody not knowing this simple fact before purchasing hasn't got a clue. The game will be patched & it can only get better. From what I have read on this & the Slitherine forum Commander is a new incarnation of & worthy successor to Panzer General because although it may be easy to play it is very challenging at the same time & very addicting to boot.

You know, you pay your money & you take your chances. I have never regretted a game purchase, ever. If I have a problem with a game I have purchased I am vocal about it but I always take the responsibility as long as the developers have been honest in advertising the product. I have just been through a spell of laying out for three games I looked forward to but haven't delivered for me. I have no regrets. You have to kiss a lot of frogs before you find your prince.

I am going to wait a while before getting Commander but it is on my short list.

Ian & Johan: keep up the good work!

End of rant.

[spcsisco]

I guess I should...She's smarter then the game!!!!!!

[spcsisco]

I'm not pouting FireBalls...Just tired of game companies advertising games for what they are not. Watch those matches your daughter might get burned.........