Ooopps doesn't seem to be a good game

[nukkxx5058]

I would like to start a discussion whetjer it is or not a good game .. thx

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

I would like to start a discussion whetjer it is or not a good game .. thx

It's a very good game. The level of pure gamey pleasure is very high. In many ways the level of abstraction is fascinating in itself and the scale in time and space is brilliant. Every single unit matters when there is enough
space on the map for manoeuver.

Just how well the game relates to WWII is an open question -- as it should be since WWII was not much fun in reality and most of its events stemmed from very bad strategic planning by the Axis powers.

[Hard Sarge]

I think it is a good game, I enjoy it very much while I am playing it

I think most of the complaints being seen, are more ways to make the game better, or to fit with the players better, then trying to say the game is bad

[nukkxx5058]

I went directly through the game without trying the tutorial. The game seems quite fun. But quite easy too. I took a balanced setting between axis and allies. I picked germans and easily invaded poland without any difficulties nor big losses.

But it was fun

I am now waiting for some reaction ...

[MengCiao]

ORIGINAL: nukkxx

I went directly through the game without trying the tutorial. The game seems quite fun. But quite easy too. I took a balanced setting between axis and allies. I picked germans and easily invaded poland without any difficulties nor big losses.

But it was fun

I am now waiting for some reaction ...

Oh from the AI. Well, the AI is trying to build up as fast as it can with the very low production that the Allies get on the "Normal" setting.

Anyway, for a better battle: take the allies against the Axis on the Normal setting. The AI killed me when I did that.

[Syagrius]

For me its a very good game, with good gamplay and lots of fun, no doubt about it. It will only get better after a few updates.

[JudgeDredd]

Great game...much better than GG:WaW:AWD imo. Space on the map to manouver, 2 week turns, reasonableand, more importantly, understandable tech and, most importantly, FUN!

I'm sure grognards would take issue with how easy it is to beat...but I've been beaten by the AI in my first game...and that's with it being laid back smoking cigars for most of the game (apart from USSR).

Still...I've still to get the manual out and really get into it. It may become easy...I don't know...but it is fun

[targul]

Game is above average but still in its infancy.  Many things do not work as you would expect and some do not work at all. Playability is great.  Historical accuracy below average.  Economic accuracy below average but I really do like the convoy system.  Politically nohing in game which is unusual for this style game but seems to work.  Combat very good.
 
It needs its first patch to be really playable in Human verses Human as so many things like playback of opponents turn are missing.  AI is sound asleep except in mainland Europe and Russia where it is really pretty good.  Med and africa you can hear it snoring while you fight in Russia. 
 
I like the game and consider it to have alot of potential but cannot recomment it until it receives a patch and maybe brings it on par with many similiar games.

[nukkxx5058]

How does the game compare with Strategic Command 2 ?

thx

[targul]

SC2 is a much more accurate game with techinal problems already worked out.  This game requires much more work to become anywhere near as good as SC2. 
 
It has the potential and some unique ideas that could make it as good or better game but it doesnt have the years of experience play that SC2 has.  This game has not even had its first patch where SC2 has had 7 patchs and one rewrite.  Give this game that much experience and money and it could be as good.
 
Anyway game is not ready yet but patch is soon to be released and that will be step one hopefully.  I would say after patch ask again and more accurate information will be available as to the quality or potential that game still holds.
 
 

[Phatguy]

Game is good right now. A patch or two and a editor will make it a better product. I know I don't like a lot of things in this game but none of them are "game killers" to me. I'm still playing which says a lot since I have the attention span of a gnat.

[MemoryLeak]

It is a simplistic game but I am enjoying it. I would like to see two additional unit types added so that you have to use a cooperative and unified strategy when on both offense and defense. They would be anti-aircraft guns and artlillery, just like the old Panzer General.
You had to make a lot of tactical decisions in that game. You had to take out the AA before risking your aircraft. And you had to move, setup and then fire your artty before attacking entrenched units. And when the units were loaded on their transport thye were very vulnerable so you had to decide when and if to do that. Now all of that is abstracted and very simple to do. No meaningful decisions to make.
I have a LAN set up at home and my son and i play against each other. Makes it more interesting but very easy to play. Needs more decision paths and problems.

[targul]

For me AA is really necessary and I would also like to see cruisers.  BB's and destroyers okay but cruisers are where it is at.
 
Artillery would be nice to see for the Russians but I could live with anyone having it.

[Vypuero]

Targul - tell me what the benefit of the cruisers is?  I am not sure I see enough of a difference in the unit types to make that seem to matter.  What am I missing?  I thought at times they would be good to have, but we would need more naval unit density, I think, to make them useful.
 
For AA, since your cities get a boost from tech vs. bombing, and since the standard 1 AA for all ground units feels about correct, not sure why they would need to be there. 

[IrishGuards]

I don't think the game is simplistic at all .. or maybe Its the Irish who are a wee bit dim .. [X(]
I find the strengths of the game to be especially apparent when developing a strategy .. If you lay the foundation for future years of war, adapt your production and forces to fight not just the Strategic game .. but the Tactical battles which in this game are very good ..[:)]
Pointy units built, deployed and sent to the front, depending on your goals and what you hope to achieve are very relevant to the big picture .. If you have just spent a fortune to fight a naval war in the Med .. and didn't build any reinforcements and have 1 bad battle ... [X(]
I look at the units .. and while basic .. BB .. CA .. CL .. nay matter .. BB is a CA .. If you want to start laying keels .. let's start with the Italian BB's ..
AA .. ??? I would want to see just an effeciency reduction for both Air and land forces .. with some small damage ..
why .. because when you start beating on 1 unit w air he wont retreat .. he will stand firm and absorb the punishment .. then send in the BB .. and when his effeciency gets reduced and he turns a pretty color you know you can do more damage to him exponentially .. so where you weren't able to really damage him before .. now you are .. seems nay right ... besides having the knowledge when he turns another pretty color really helps ..[&o]
IDG

[targul]

Cruisers are actually the workhorse of most navies.  They are inbetween the heavy slow bb's and the small fast destroyers.  The desinty of ships is quit low far as I can tell.  Starts very low and stays that way.  I remain amazed that the largest navy in the world at the time England has one destroyer. 
 
I would like to see some action in the Atlantic but it is pretty rare for two reasons.  1) no ships out there 2) cost of destroyers and u boats to expensive for both sides to keep them running around and delivery some Atlantic action.
 
When you consider a BB is 10 points more then a destroyer that is crazy.  Destroyers should be more like 35 points as should u boats.  That would be closer to cost. 
 
Aircraft carriers should also have a cost increase.
 
I would also lower the number of aircraft carriers in and atlantic.  The British carriers were not as plentiful as the BB's and most of the carriers where very small with inferior planes at the war start.
 
Since I have not yet recieved the rulebook I did not know it says there is inherant AA in units and cities.  If that is so and it upgrades with the units and cities then I would also see no need but if it does not then they do need to be available. 
 

[Vypuero]

The cruisers are all part of the BB units - and it all depends on numbers, as the BB units have some ASW capability as well.  They really just represent fleet types more so than just a couple of ships.  I think someone said earlier they are more like Carrier, Battle, and Escort fleets and the like.

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: targul

Cruisers are actually the workhorse of most navies. They are inbetween the heavy slow bb's and the small fast destroyers. The desinty of ships is quit low far as I can tell. Starts very low and stays that way. I remain amazed that the largest navy in the world at the time England has one destroyer.

I would like to see some action in the Atlantic but it is pretty rare for two reasons. 1) no ships out there 2) cost of destroyers and u boats to expensive for both sides to keep them running around and delivery some Atlantic action.

When you consider a BB is 10 points more then a destroyer that is crazy. Destroyers should be more like 35 points as should u boats. That would be closer to cost.

Aircraft carriers should also have a cost increase.

I would also lower the number of aircraft carriers in and atlantic. The British carriers were not as plentiful as the BB's and most of the carriers where very small with inferior planes at the war start.

Since I have not yet recieved the rulebook I did not know it says there is inherant AA in units and cities. If that is so and it upgrades with the units and cities then I would also see no need but if it does not then they do need to be available.

I agree about the cost of DD's and subs vs BB's and such.. Also would like to see more time for building BB's and carriers. Roughly 3 months to get a carrier as it now stands? Not to sure about the cruisers. If you inlude them do you diffientiate between heavy and light"? What about torpedo boats?...Keep as is. I think the BB's are not individual ships but taskforces built around BB's anyways.

[SMK-at-work]

IMO it is a good game......but it should have been a brilliant one - it failed to live up to its promise.
 
The first patch has been announced, and will fix some of the glaring errors without doing anything too major to he nature of the game.  It will take something like BFC's SC2 WaW to get this up to where it should be IMO.

[Warfare1]

Let's be fair to Commander.

For example, Strategic Command had at least 7 patches.

Strategic Command 2 is a new generation of the game and it has had several patches and now will be having an expansion pack.

Commander simply looks good. There is tremendous growth potential for this game and the developer is committed to its improvement. It will take time for its improvement.

Slitherine is currently looking for beta testers for a map editor for the game:

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3779