Can someone sum up for me the differences between this game and Strategic Command 2 with WAW?

[Executioner Five]

On the fence for which one to get--can someone sum up the differences between the two? Has anyone played both?

[MemoryLeak]

I hope this post doesn't come off as being rude but this question has been asked about 65 million times. The replies are always split evenly depending on which forum you are browsing. Each game has it's own strengths and weaknesses. I bought both games so that I could make up my own mind and that is what I would suggest others do.
We aren't talking a fortune here to buy both games. I own literally hundreds and end up tiring of one and installing another.
Both games are very entertaining and have a lot of replayability. I have spent many hours doing just that.
Good luck with your dilemma.

[Fred98]

Strategic Command has squares and very few of them. The counters stand up on their ends.
 
CEAW has hexes and lots of them. I use "counters" mode and they are 2D and resemble traditional wargaming counters.
 
-

[Spechtmeise]

This questions is very much justified. There are a number of good grand strategy games out. Unfortunately there is no satisfying answer to it.
I bought SC first, played it, and liked it. Four weeks later I bought CEAW, played it, and liked it. Now I have both games on my hard drive and I have fun playing both. I feel that both games were developed by programmers passionate about what they are doing. Bottom line: get both. That is really the only way to find out what suits your tastes.

[SMK-at-work]

i'm unbiased....I've given up on both!! [:D]

Both are WW2-lite IMO......for a bit more depth and infinitely more variety you might want to consider "Advanced Tactics"  or "The Operational Art of War" both of which are really game design systems and both of which have WW2-in-europe scenarios that are as good if not better than eitehr of these 2 dedicated efforts.

Plus yuo get to play other scenarios with them too.

AT is the simpler of the 2 & has a superior production system to TOAW, but is very generic in feel.  TOAW's "Europe Ablaze" is a classic - it has a forum all of its own & is very ychallenging.

Edited to add that SC2's diplomatic system is the only comprehensive one in the lineup, and CEAW's research is the best of the lot too.

[KarlXII]

I played Strategic Command 1 and never got hooked to it. It didn´t really draw me in and wasn´t as easily accessible.
I like CEAW much more. It is fun and addictive. Though you should be prepared to play it against humans because I am so far not impressed by the AI.

[darthsmaul]

yeah, I played 1 game as axis and part of a game as allies and crushed the AI, played my first PBEM started about 2 weeks ago and Im getting slaughtered

STeve

[YohanTM2]

SMK - you might want to review CWiE II

Its late but I am looking forward to it...

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

i'm unbiased....I've given up on both!! [:D]

Both are WW2-lite IMO......for a bit more depth and infinitely more variety you might want to consider "Advanced Tactics"  or "The Operational Art of War" both of which are really game design systems and both of which have WW2-in-europe scenarios that are as good if not better than eitehr of these 2 dedicated efforts.

Plus yuo get to play other scenarios with them too.

AT is the simpler of the 2 & has a superior production system to TOAW, but is very generic in feel.  TOAW's "Europe Ablaze" is a classic - it has a forum all of its own & is very ychallenging.

Edited to add that SC2's diplomatic system is the only comprehensive one in the lineup, and CEAW's research is the best of the lot too.

[vondee]

I assume both of these games are better than the old P**** General? (insert People's, Panzer, Pacific, etc.) Thanks since I am looking at both but haven't played either...

[damastabongo]

Hi vondee,
 
Nice picture you have here. Do you have another. I'm always looking for good drawings to mod this game, why not this style ?
 
Thanks
 
Bongo

[vondee]

This avatar is a unit from Mark H. Walker's Lock 'n Load series of board games (coming to the PC as I understand things).  Its sure to be under copyright so I will gladly stop using it here if it gives some corporate types heartburn.  Just paying a micro-tribute to a great series.

So to answer your question - no, I wouldn't have others but yes, it is indeed cool...

[wargamer123]

CEAW and SC are right now the only two alike games of Clash of Steel and Third Reich available. SC's no more hexes but the tiles are like CIV3 and the game is got the feel of a hex... both have numerous pros and cons I do not know the game CEAW but when it comes down in price and I'm working I'll write up a real indepth report, but both are pretty affordable and both are pretty much it if you loved Third Reich and COS

[FF_1079]

I played Clash of Steel until my eyes bled when it first came out. I had great hopes for the original SC when the demo came out, but two game mechanics were deal breakers for me. The Naval system in SC was non-strategic to me in comparison to CoS. I preferred moving fleets to sea zones and contesting for shipping control, with a percentage chance of a fleet engagement. Moving a pseudo ship/fleet from hex to hex to engage another seemed...a step backwards somehow. The other thing that kept me from SC was the inability to exploit after an attack. In CoS, units were allowed to participate in one "set piece" multiple unit attack, but individual units (like armored corps) could keep attacking if the unit had a high enough movement value and still had an attack strength. Maybe these traits have been changed, but the screenies of the square movement grid I saw when SC2 was in development ended my interest.

I want to try CEAW, but I'm a little concerned with the convoy/wolf pack system I've been reading about. If they put out a demo I will definitely give it a try and decide then.

[lparkh]

SC2-waw is excellent and the AI one of the most sophisticated I've run across. Don't dismiss it out of hand. THere may be a demo .. in fact pretty sure there is.
Played clash of steel. this is better

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: FF_1079

I played Clash of Steel until my eyes bled when it first came out. I had great hopes for the original SC when the demo came out, but two game mechanics were deal breakers for me. The Naval system in SC was non-strategic to me in comparison to CoS. I preferred moving fleets to sea zones and contesting for shipping control, with a percentage chance of a fleet engagement. Moving a pseudo ship/fleet from hex to hex to engage another seemed...a step backwards somehow. The other thing that kept me from SC was the inability to exploit after an attack. In CoS, units were allowed to participate in one "set piece" multiple unit attack, but individual units (like armored corps) could keep attacking if the unit had a high enough movement value and still had an attack strength. Maybe these traits have been changed, but the screenies of the square movement grid I saw when SC2 was in development ended my interest.

I want to try CEAW, but I'm a little concerned with the convoy/wolf pack system I've been reading about. If they put out a demo I will definitely give it a try and decide then.

tm.asp?m=1656957

There are several voices back and fourth about several aspects of the game and often when someone come up with a master move other players invent a counter to it. Here is one of the latest written and very accurate description of how the subs work. There was a comparison topic at Wargamer a while back but there it was not mentioned that the Submarine in CEAW has a special invisibility attribute to ensure their survival. They only go visible after battles and they hide again first time they move again.

[SeaMonkey]

Too bad you missed it FF1079. I won't even go into the multitude of improvements that have come to pass over a 5 year evolution of SC into the present WaW expansion.

Just know that, as a CoS veteran, you missed it. No big deal...don't try the new demo, just go on without this little life enhancer....cause we all know


Ignorance is Bliss!

[blackcloud6]

I've been on the fence too about this one.   The screen shots make me think it is a big version of panzer general.  is the combat model better than PG?  I hope so.  Trotter's review over on The wargamer almost pushes me to buy.

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: blackcloud6

I've been on the fence too about this one.   The screen shots make me think it is a big version of panzer general.  is the combat model better than PG?  I hope so.  Trotter's review over on The wargamer almost pushes me to buy.

The combat model is the strongest part in this game, has been all the way from the start and it is a shame it does not get credited with that all too often. These kind of things often are hidden beneath the surface and requires a large amount of playing the game before really knowing how it holds.

IMO there is no other strategic game that models the combination of front line, morale, breaking the lines, retreat after battle and advance after combat like CEAW does.

It is not often I express my own opinion but could not help it because combat model is not very often discussed compared to other areas. [:)]

[blackcloud6]

IMO there is no other strategic game that models the combination of front line, morale, breaking the lines, retreat after battle and advance after combat like CEAW does.

Interesting, and you may have pushed me to the edge of purchase.  How does the player know about these apects?  Can he take them into account when attacking/defending?

I purchased GGWAW with the addon and it is OK but I don't really like the area movement games where you just have a pile of units fight a pile of units.   I tried the SC2 demo but the maps in squares didn't seem to grab me.    CEaW seems to be a good version of a hex based game where you can run the overall war and conduct the operations too.

[firepowerjohan]

To avoid mixing my personal opinions with the facts, I have created an informative topic on the developer forum for all to read about exactly how the combat system works.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37373#37373