Comparison to Commander Europe at War

[dmbgamer]

Has anyone played both? AT sounds slightly more tactical than CEaW.

[BULLDOGINTHEUK]

I have played CEAW and found its appeal very limited. It is a very basic, simple game with very little complexity although easy to pick up and get into. It would appeal to the casual strategy gamer. I got bored of it after a few days. I think it has about 4-5 different starting dates 1939, 1941, etc... There are only a limited number of different units.[/align] [/align]AT is much more complex and has lots of possibilities. Lots of scenarios too compared to CEAW. My money every time would be AT without doubt every time. Ask me any questions about both games if you want any more info.[/align]

[SMK-at-work]

No it's not more tactical - but IMO it is way more realistic.  About hte only thing in CEAW that was good (again IMO) was the research system.

The scales are very similar and AT is actually a wargame construction programme - CEAW has no variability beyond the senarios of WW2.  I beta tested CEAW & was very disappointed with the result - AT is both simpler and more subtle, easier to play & gives a better result.  If it's a matter of chosing 1 over hte other then no question - get AT.

[Tac2i]

You will not be disappointed in AT. It has lots of variety and therefore lots of replay value.  Easy to learn the basics yet it has very good systems for modelling combat operations. If I could only own one wargame, AT would very likely be that game. One caveat: if you play against multiple AI on a large map, it can take up to 30-45 minutes for the game to process the AI turns. Even with that limitation, I fine the game fun. Play by email is also a lot of fun if you have the patience for it. Bottom line: get this game!

[dmbgamer]

Thanks for the information. One other concern I have is the subunit design. As I understand it, you must build your units by placing rifle companies, etc into a "box" for a particular unit. I am not a WWII unit detail guru, so my question is how do you determine the best unit makeup and do you spend most of your time figuring out maximum unit configuration rather than playing the game. I would assume the makeup of each unit is critical in how well you perform in the game. In CEaW and SCBlitzkrieg the units are already created and you don't focus on their makeup.
 
Can anyone share their thoughts on this?

[IRONCROM]

Your limited only by your imagination. The game does operate off the rock, paper, scissor principal though. So most players build there units to specialize in a particular task. Like taking urban locations or fighting in mountain terrain. Fast or slow units. etc.

[emcgman]

You create complete units by filling `containers'. The containers can contain only 1 unit type, or several different unit types. You can keep this simple, but the beauty is you also have the freedom to custom create units to your specs.
 
Really, if you're thinking of getting one hex based strategy game, get Advanced Tactics. I do have Commander Europe at War as well, which I really like, but AT is the `infinite' game, with variety and and real nice selection of stock and user created scenarios.
 
Just one final note, the customization of AT you will not believe the potential scope of this game. I also would like to say that getting the full CD version plus direct download so you can play it now, is a very worthy choice.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: dmbgamer

Thanks for the information. One other concern I have is the subunit design. As I understand it, you must build your units by placing rifle companies, etc into a "box" for a particular unit. I am not a WWII unit detail guru, so my question is how do you determine the best unit makeup and do you spend most of your time figuring out maximum unit configuration rather than playing the game. I would assume the makeup of each unit is critical in how well you perform in the game. In CEaW and SCBlitzkrieg the units are already created and you don't focus on their makeup.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this?

While a lot of attention is given to AT's strategic scenarios, there are a number of historic, operational scenarios as well. Some of them are set up to not even use the production system instaead the designer gives you units which you can transfer to whichever of your front line units you think need them.

I enjoy some strategy - and I think AT really shines in this area, but the operaitonal scenarios are also enjoyable and I think At does a good job of creating the right atmaopshere. For example if you play the Geramns in the Ardennes scenario - you'll find you can advance and win battles - but you quickly find yourself needing more units and not having them - worrying about your flanks. etc.

So AT is very very flexible.

And I also had an opportunity to play CEAW - and I did enjoy it as well - but it doesnt have the flexiblity that AT has as far as being able to play different batlles and even eras - from Star Trek to Romans.

Rick

[AZKGungHo]

If the demo of CEAW is anything to judge by, there's NO comparasion at all IMHO. 

[Joshuatree]

ORIGINAL: dmbgamer

Thanks for the information. One other concern I have is the subunit design. As I understand it, you must build your units by placing rifle companies, etc into a "box" for a particular unit. I am not a WWII unit detail guru, so my question is how do you determine the best unit makeup and do you spend most of your time figuring out maximum unit configuration rather than playing the game. I would assume the makeup of each unit is critical in how well you perform in the game. In CEaW and SCBlitzkrieg the units are already created and you don't focus on their makeup.

Can anyone share their thoughts on this?

Certainly.
With games like CEaW and BattleFront's Strategic Command 2 you have predefined units like inf, armour, planes and what not. In AT you have a "unit" which is a "box" that can be filled up with any unit you want. Most important are the attack modifiers, meaning that if you attack from one or two hexes your max stack size is 100. Attack with bigger units means a penalty. In AT this is called "crowding", meaning too many troops in a hex resulting in less attack and combat points.
Therefore it follows that you don't want to create "Über-units", like 10 heavy tanks in a unit, or 200 inf. Now you may make a big "100" stack size unit, with it you can attack from a hex without penalty. But.... if you divide this unit in two units with each 50 points you then can attack from different hexes, which grants you an attack bonus! It also matters if you attack from hexes next to each other, or hexes opposite, the latter gives more bonus. AND, to top it off, units attacking under the *same* HQ (that's the colored bar to the left of the unit) gives more bonus then units from different HQ's.
So, I tend to make my units about 50 points strong.
Then there is the small matter of what to put in it... [&:] Took me some time to figure that out. In general, the "cooler" the unit the more supply it uses... [:@] So those spanking new Tigers, or Aircraft carriers, may look awesome... they use up a huge amount of supply. Remember, your cities make those supplies, and when they produce supplies to keep the engines running they can't make units or Political Points. So inf. is cheap and effective, don't cost too much, but is vulnerable and SLOW. Heavy tanks are great, but expensive, and vulnerable in forests and cities.
So what it boils down too is creating many inf units, about 50 points each (which is about 35 rifles/ machineguns (= 35x1 point makes 35 points) , with some heavy machine guns mortars (also one point each), and heavy equipment (5 or 10 points I forgot) attached) They form the main bulk of your army, as was the case in real life.
Next to that you create your fast, deadly and expensive armour corps, also 50 points each (3 to 4 tanks each 10 points worth= 40) plus some inf. for protection in forest. Note that tanks (and horses, trucks, armoured cars and half tracks) have a "carry capacity", they can carry from 5 (tank) to 20 inf. (truck, half track). So 4 tanks can carry 20 men, meaning a stack size of 60 (4x10 plus 20).
Furthermore there is the matter of speed. Light tanks are fast and quite deadly for inf., so are amoured cars... perfect for a breakthrough, for capturing a airfield! Heavy tanks are master of the battlefield, but slow, and vulnerable for air attack.

And so on and so on [:D]

Try some small scenarios at first is my advice, and have fun.

[Joshuatree]

One small addition. attacking from one hex gives you no bonus, from 2 hexes next to each other is a 10% bonus, (provided they are from the same HQ, otherwise it's 3% if they are from different HQ's) if you attack from two hexes but one is in the "rear" of the enemy unit the bonus is... 50%... meaning encirclement is rewarded---> therefore you'll need fast units, like tracked inf. or light tanks. The more hexes you attack from is more bonus up to a total of 200% [:D] (all six surrouding hexes)
Now you may say, heck I'll give all my inf. units halftracks. Not a good idea, because they eat up supply, and in snowy conditions horses are better.
Choices, choices.

[zook08]

ORIGINAL: dmbgamer
I am not a WWII unit detail guru, so my question is how do you determine the best unit makeup and do you spend most of your time figuring out maximum unit configuration rather than playing the game. I would assume the makeup of each unit is critical in how well you perform in the game. In CEaW and SCBlitzkrieg the units are already created and you don't focus on their makeup.

A soon as you have figured out the combat system, you'll know what to build. Read some of the AARs on this site to get an idea, e.g. bwheatley's WaW AARs. Usually, you don't spend too much time on optimizing unit composition. What you do mostly is allocate reinforcements each turn. Need more antitank power in the southwest? Send some freshly built AT guns from your HQ and perhaps some extra machineguns, just in case. Want to build up a force for counterattack in the northeast? Create a new counter near the front, fill it with fresh tanks, trucks, mortars and infantry. Your ability to shift troops from one unit to another is limited by your HQ's transport capacity, which is expensive to increase. So you usually can't optimize too much, thus it's important to plan ahead for next turn.

Where do you put your HQs, what do you build, how much transport do you need, how do you organize your supply chain? That's what sets AT apart.

[Joshuatree]

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree

One small addition. attacking from one hex gives you no bonus, from 2 hexes next to each other is a 10% bonus, (provided they are from the same HQ, otherwise it's 3% if they are from different HQ's) if you attack from two hexes but one is in the "rear" of the enemy unit the bonus is... 50%... meaning encirclement is rewarded---> therefore you'll need fast units, like tracked inf. or light tanks. The more hexes you attack from is more bonus up to a total of 200% [:D] (all six surrouding hexes)
Now you may say, heck I'll give all my inf. units halftracks. Not a good idea, because they eat up supply, and in snowy conditions horses are better.
Choices, choices.

Hmm, seems that I wasn't spot on here [:o]

Here's some info from Vic himself on this topic:



This table might clearify

Sides of attack | Max Attack Stack before penalties | Max Defensive Stack before penalties

1 | 100 | 100
2 | 100 | 100
3 | 150 | 100
4 | 200 | 100
5 | 250 | 100
6 | 300 | 100

Kind regards,
Vic


Sooo, 300% attack bonus! Doesn't happen that much though. Here's the link: tm.asp?m=1686797

[Delyn Locksmiths]

ORIGINAL: Joshuatree



Sides of attack | Max Attack Stack before penalties | Max Defensive Stack before penalties

6 | 300 | 100

so a 300% attack bonus.

No no no no, that's the amount of power points you can put into the attack without penalties. the bonus is a lot less, but is extra to your 3-1 advantage.

[Moltke71]

In building units, let me give you some of my hard-earned edvice.

1.  For foot and arty units, always include trucks.  Truccks are the real backbone of the game.
2,  Only put staff in HQs.
3.  Land-based aircraft should either be in their own division or with a HQ and divisions you don't plan to move.  Including fighters with bombers is a good idea.  Of course, carriers always get their own air wing.
4.  Early in the games, have small units with armoured cars and a few scouts.