List of Whats Wrong With This Game!

[Syagrius]

ORIGINAL: LRRP

Alright , let me settle this topic once and for all (LOL)[:D]. I have SC2 , SC2WAW, Grigsbys WAW and CEAW. I find them all good games and fun. They have similarities yet, nuances that make them different enough to keep both on your computer and play. I think both games are good choices because they have a good following, good support, and attempts to make them better games with patches. They are above beer and pretzel games (axis & Allies) but well below , pull your hair out (Uncommon Valor, war in the pacific) these are for the people who want the tedium and headaches(actual ones) that go with fighting a war. They are easier to understand and follow the strategy than Grigsbys WAW. I would use this test to decide to buy it or not:
1) Did you like Panzer General? Yes keep going to next question. No , stop and do not buy.
2) Do you like games that have that one more turn appeal? Yes, keep going to next question .  No , stop do not buy
3) Do you like resource management to be a big part of the game? Yes, stop and do not buy.  No, go to next question.
4) Do you like the ability to feel like you have a grasp of your war fronts?  Yes , go to next question. No, stop and do not buy.
5) Congrats you have made it and you will be happy, go click and buy this game CEAW!

  I hope that this does not offend anyones point of views, but I tried to make it simple. Any more questions and this game would be too simple for you! LOL [;)]

Good quiz! I agree 100% [:D]

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

I understand people have likes and dislikes about CEAW's and that's fine, everyone is entitled to an opinion and you're never going to create a game that everyone likes. This kind of thing is very subjective.
....complains the sound was choppy....sigh. This kind of statement really annoys me!

FYI Here is a screenshot from his game



I guess this makes him an expert

Now that's what I call a "slick" and "polished" interface with all the "Bells and whistles"[:D]

Honestly, the CEAW interface is so easy and intuitive, we had people on the Spiel game convention in Essen (Germany) learning, playing and enjoying it in seconds. What else can you ask for???

[Rocko911]

SMK, the question I have for all the people who complain about the War Games following history, why play if you cannot change it in some way? I mean you already know what is going to happen. I have always said games that focus on particular battles are the best for people like you. The variables are more controllable. Now do not infer my response as an attack on your point of view. I mean their could be scripts created that make certain things happen via the ww2 timeline, (pearl harbor but then people would complain about it being to restrictive). Perhaps their is a nitch of a wargame market out their for people to make one that follows general ww2 timelines and battle strategies of the opposing force and you can be scored how well in defeat or victory you do versus the actual participants.

[Irish Guards]

ORIGINAL: LRRP

SMK, the question I have for all the people who complain about the War Games following history, why play if you cannot change it in some way? I mean you already know what is going to happen. I have always said games that focus on particular battles are the best for people like you. The variables are more controllable. Now do not infer my response as an attack on your point of view. I mean their could be scripts created that make certain things happen via the ww2 timeline, (pearl harbor but then people would complain about it being to restrictive). Perhaps their is a nitch of a wargame market out their for people to make one that follows general ww2 timelines and battle strategies of the opposing force and you can be scored how well in defeat or victory you do versus the actual participants.

Really .... Thats the load .... [:-]
If you think that there are no variables to alter the game way beyond what is actually historically possible in this game then you have nay played too many games ..

Even as far as Labs and builds go in this game I have seen and am seeing way more of this kind of play ....
All human vs human ....[X(]

Armor and Air labs to the max for germany ... This means King Tigers like crazy by 1942 .. 15/15 ... [&o]
Bmrs and Ftrs that knock anything out of the sky and then as a bonus the Axis receives control of the most important sea areas by default ...

A naval war that will never repeat even remotely WW2 .. because of lack of sub production by the Germans ... Allied naval builds .. besides Superdreadnought Cv's .. never .. All Allied early prod can then go to Air labs ..
By Barbarosa Uk has a huge Air fleet w labs galore ... And limited invasions when Russia is involved in the game in 1941 ..

Mid -East campaign .. why bother .. [8|] Now that UK gets 2 shiny corps in Iraq ..

And exactly what does it mean by you allready know whats going to happen ... [&:]

A simple solution to most of the problems related to these situations is ...
A force pool of units and labs you can actually produce and repair with availability the major issue ..
Not a great solution .. but .. It is difficult to introduce major changes effecting playability after the game has been produced and consideration has not been given to
Balance of Power ... [&o]
IDG

[targul]

Well, I know you all hate to hear me voice an opinion and I havent in awhile but I just feel the need so I shall. 
 
This is a good game but then I liked Chutes and Ladders when I was small.  I think this game has almost as much to do with WWII and Chutes and Ladders.  So it meets all the requirements of LRRP except for Panzer General.  So I suggest since you wish to ignore history in your WWII game just play Chutes and Ladders you will receive the same thrill.
 
Seriously though this game is not horrible as a game.  If you are new to WWII genre games I can highly recommend it.  If you are a history buff and wish to simulate WWII this game is not one which does that.  It will give you a nice feel of a war game and the game engine is strong.  Compared to the majority of what is available in War Games this is one of the best around.
 
Okay you can now all in unison complain that if I dont like the game I should go away and not comment.
 
 

[Harvey Birdman]

I agree that air&armour superiority for the axis works great. [:D] Then max out air&armour research, sell those labs and get half your money back for research in the other area's is great research problem optimization.

Simple solution: Max 2 labs ahead of the other research areas. So air&armour at 2 labs, the other areas at zero; before air&armour go from 2 to 3 labs, the other areas all have to be at 1; before air&armour go from 3 to 4 labs. the other areas all have to be at 2.

Rommel's pet peeve about this game: Tanks and motorized infantry corps have no operational tempo. Guderian's pet peeve about this game: Tanks and motorized infantry corps have no operational velocity and momentum. Von Manstein's pet peeve about this game: There's no long operational armoured thrusts in this game. [:D]

In human vs human play as axis do you ever manage to encircle or send armoured thrusts to the coast to cut russians off from supply&lower effectiveness during operation Barbarossa?

I find myself using tanks the way the french used tanks: as an infantry support weapon in attrition warfare. [:(]

[Bossy573]

ORIGINAL: targul


Okay you can now all in unison complain that if I dont like the game I should go away and not comment.

I absolutely love CEAW but the AI in SC2-WAW absolutely blows away the AI in this game ESPECIALLY outside of the main theatre of operations.

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: LRRP

SMK, the question I have for all the people who complain about the War Games following history, why play if you cannot change it in some way?

I never said anythign about following history.

It really annoysme when people bring that one up - it's old and tired, and a result of laziness by people who dont' want to read what I actually wrote.

I said the game doesn't provide believable ALTERNATE history.

All games provide alternate history. If a game is going to be a good simulation then, IMO, it's version of alternate history needs to be believable.

For example is there a scenario where Germany ever invades Spain, or spain joins het Axis? Pretty much only if Germany captures some serious oilfields first.....- all of spain's oil was imported, most of it from the USA...if Germany invaded Spain they'd have had to provide that much more oil...and they didn't have it!

so it's not out of the question for Spain to join WW2 on one side or the other...there are scenarios where it becomes possible.

Sweden joining? not impossible - the Brits had a plan for "helping" Finland vs the USSR that mainly involved occupying the Swedish iron mines!! Not sure what that would do to help finland, but it'd certainly put Sweden in the war!!

Or invading the UK.....anyone who's done any vaguely serious reading about Sealion understands why it would ahve been a disaster for the German war machine.......but games always make it nice and easy relative to what it was goign to be like in real life.

So there are actual scenarios that were contemplated in real life using real considerations.....most games don't bother with such real considerations tho.

but kingtigers "like crazy" in WW2? Never goign to happen unless you refor the entire German state starting about 1925 - they simply completely lacked the ability to mass produce heavy tanks - their heavy tank production was handled by the big industrial combines that made limited humbers of large engineering pieces.....in hte US and USSR and UK tanks were built by automotive firms and factories that were used to turning out 10's of thousands.....Germany's tank producers went into it producing a few hundred products as a large production run (eg cranes, locomotives, heavy guns).......such fundamental considerations are simply not covered in simplistic games like CEAW and SC2

there's nothing wrong with them as games with a military background, but they are not historical simulations IMO.

[Veldor]

Thanks for all the input guys. A few things..

1. To those that didn't like the game: Is that all you've got? I've never seen a less convincing argument for not purchasing a game. Make up something if you have to!
2. I'm a self-proclaimed interface design expert and what worried me about that review was that I initially got a VERY strong feeling the interface for this game was far above average for wargames just by the screenshots (Yes I thought it well apparant in this case from the screenshots). As its well known that any reviewer by definition is an expert in all things I was a bit shocked to read the exact opposite from what I was thinking. But I'm gonna go with my gut and ignore the reviewer... however this worries me because.
3. It seems all reviewers of matrix games either find every game a 5/8 or better or basically (Somewhat like this guy) like nearly none of them. So no demo, no useful reviews, no real AAR's in this case, might make it a bit tougher a choice. A few of us should really get together and start the ultimate fair review site (with a far more complex scoring system that ends up without every game ending up as a "Must Buy". Better for Matrix anyway as its not believable every game they make is great no matter how bad they wish that were true!
4. Thanks to whoever pointed out TCP/IP play. Missed it somehow and that makes it an instant buy for me. It's a nice change to be able to play some wargames that way.

[SMK-at-work]

For those of us who don't like the game it's enough [:'(]

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Veldor

3. It seems all reviewers of matrix games either find every game a 5/8 or better or basically (Somewhat like this guy) like nearly none of them. So no demo, no useful reviews, no real AAR's in this case, might make it a bit tougher a choice. A few of us should really get together and start the ultimate fair review site (with a far more complex scoring system that ends up without every game ending up as a "Must Buy". Better for Matrix anyway as its not believable every game they make is great no matter how bad they wish that were true!

Did you check the reviews thread?

tm.asp?m=1520773

[Vypuero]

Well, I have been playing some excellent games in TCP/IP mode that have been many hours long, and each game has been a challenging and enjoyable experience.  What the naysayers are not telling you is how much better the overall system is regarding many areas.  One is the map and maneuver, compared to a couple of little squares in SC2 for example, CEAW has many hexes and a good supply and zoc system that works fairly realistically and is visually easy to grasp.  The game models manpower, oil, and production well.  Technology gives you many options to choose.  The effectiveness stat makes a great deal of difference as well and gives an excellent dynamic to exhaustion and quality and the like. 
 
Diplomacy is nice but overrated - for one they have little evidence to back up the hypotheticals - for another having the entry dates standard or slightly randomized seems to work pretty well.  They don't tell you how many bugs including scripts and the like can induce - things that become wildly inaccurate, either through AI or human manipulation.  I have seen people try to attack the various neutrals and sometimes it works, sometimes it does not, but it remains an interesting strategy.  US entry is highly arguable - barring vast changes in the war, the US only entered the war because of Pearl Harbor (outside of the scope of this game) and then Hitler's DoW on the USA, which he thought would help bring the Japanese in to help vs. Russia.
 
So sure, there are things that can be added to the game - but if you have ever designed anything, every additional variable adds the possibility of more bugs and issues - and this game is remarkably bug free.

[Jabba]

I’ve just got this game and I must say I’m impressed. It’s smooth and addictive and the interface is wonderfully intuitive. There are tough decisions to make each turn.

On the downside, realism is somewhat limited by the simplicity of the mechanics. On the one hand there are no weather effects and so no winter lull in campaigning. On the other hand, most things (the Fall of France, the conquest of the Balkans etc) tend to play out over several turns, somewhat slower than they did historically. The net result is that these two things tend to cancel each other out, and the end result is more realistic than one might expect!

After one game, I believe the most serious drawback is the passivity of the AI. Do I need to garrison my conquests? It’s not clear that I do, as the AI has yet to launch any amphibious counter-attacks. In North Africa, the AI (the Allies) allowed itself to be steamrollered quickly, without any attempt to reinforce the area.

I wish there were a few more ports on the map (Antwerp?), accurately reflecting their importance to World War II strategy.

[KarlXII]

Actually the only drawback at all with this wonderful game when playing multiplayer is the lack of a good AI. The problem for me is that I only have time to play against the AI so for me I am quite dissappointed by now. Having played the campaign as Axis fron 1939 at default settings and conquered Russia by summer of 1943 I see no meaning to continue the war. The passivity and lack of coordination of the AI is its major drawback.
 
Now I´ve started a new game as Allied with Axis getting all but one step below max advantage. The result so far ? First, the AI receives a lot of more troops to start with and that in itself makes it much harder. It has just conquered Benelux, France, Denmark and Yugoslavia in may 1941 and is now moving up towards the russian front. I wonder if the AI is scripted to do exactly the same thing in every game against it ? Will it ever attempt to take Norway, Spain or Greece ?

[Vypuero]

The AI is non-scripted, so it focuses on taking the capitals.  It goes for Yugoslavia and the various smaller Nations but I don't believe it ever takes Norway, Spain, or Greece.  That is just too tough for it to do as a human will pretty much smash it trying that.  In fact humans often can't do it either.

[Lucky1]

Ok. First off, I will preface my comments as being:
a) my opinions (i.e., others can and will disagree); and
b) although they are critical, they are being made with the hope that might be addressed (preferably in a patch -- GGWAWAWD has been quite diligent in this fashion, as has Frank Hunter's team).
 
In terms of the CEAW's interface and styling, I have no complaints. The graphics / UI are clear, and convey all that needs to be seen. Anyone complaining about the interface might not be suited to the gaming genre (I am old enough to remember tokens, matrices, and calculators....). Visually, the game is just fine. Indeed, it is quite elegant.
 
However, I must aver some significant disappointment with CEAW. Most notably, the computer turn takes way too long -- especially if one is playing with fog of war. Frankly, I have no desire to watch a static screen for several minutes between turns. While we all might agree that computer games can be a waste of time, this takes it to new levels. Although I might be wrong on this score, I am willing to bet that most wargamers are adults, with limited amounts of time on their hands. In short, the game needs to have the option to disable viewing computer moves and/or combats. This option exists in Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided, and eliminates a ton of wasted time.  I would hope that it could be easily implemented in CEAW. A must for any patch....
 
CEAW's AI is quite poor. Admittedly, I am sure the game is much better against a human opponent, but this is not always an option for many gamers. As such, those who cannot do the TCIP thing and who are hoping for a modicum of challenge from the AI SHOULD NOT BUY THIS GAME. Against the computer, the game is not very challenging. In my very first game (fog of war, random tech, normal settings, oil use on etc.)I kicked the allies out of Poland, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, Cairo, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, all by early 1942 (I left Greece alone). Russia declared war on Germany around the same time, but was (paridoxically) not at all prepared to go to war and I was able to knock her out by late 1943 (I might have done it faster had I understood the victory conditions). Meanwhile, although the entire mediterranean was minimally garrisoned, the Western Allies constantly had approximately 10-15 troops TRYING to make landings across Normandy.  However, I simply plugged the coastline with troops, thereby preventing the computer from making any landings. The transports simply piled up off the coast. Of course, had the AI tried to land elsewhere, it would have found my empire most weakly defended. Similarly, the AI did not contest Africa and it made no effort to intercept my troops as they were sent from Italy. In short, the AI is not remotely a challenge. Too, I abandoned submarine warfare almost immediately as being not even remotely cost effective.
 
In terms of other game liabilities, I find that submarine warfare is simply not viable with the current game mechanics - there is no ability to hit and dash (or submerge or whatever). Effectively, a sub hits the transport (if he can find one), and then is stuck in the open for all the destroyers and fleets in the Atlantic to converge on at the same time. Clash of Steel and Frank Hunter's Guns of August model naval warfare better IMHO.
 
I DO like how the game integrates oil and population factors. The reasearch functions work well. The zones of control are reasonably well done as well. However, the game could benefit from having group attacks (i.e., allow multiple units to simultaneously attack a single unit or give atack bonuses when a unit is surrounded). Similarly, strategic bombing never seems to have come into play.
 
To conclude, when CEAW was first announced, it struck me as reminiscent of my favorite WWII strategy level game of all time - SSI's 1993 (?) Clash of Steel. Leaving aside issues of aesthetics, Clash of Steel remains the better game. (Any developers reading this post, take heed -- I am not the only one who has observed that Clash of Steel is dying to be be redone / updated for TCIP). This is too bad, because I was really hoping that CEAW (which is so like COS in many ways) might have taken things to a new level.
 
 

[KarlXII]

I agree with most of what Lucky1 just has said. My only comment is that I am prepared to wait long for the AI to make its turn IF THE AI IS GOOD!!!.
I regret I bought the game as I play in single player mode 95% of the time.

[blackcloud6]

there's nothing wrong with them as games with a military background, but they are not historical simulations IMO.

Well, it is very hard to judge whether a game simulates WWII.  A pure sim would probably be no fun and one that throws history to the wind would not appeal to the history minded players.   

So does CEaW give you a feel that you are fighting WWII at the Strategic Operational level?     Do some wild things happen to spoil it?

[greenit]

Great game. But is it possible to have for PBEM games either 1) a timed option for each turn, and/or 2) stop/limit/display the number of times each PBEM game turn can/has been redone?

[56ajax]

I am only on version 1.0 of this game and I have found it very easy to drive and configure and enjoyable as well.  Its good fun.  What I dont like - seems no point to building German subs and some units when (logically) surrounded seem to stay in supply and be re-supplied forever.  See what the patches bring.   And thanks to the developers.