If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

LarryP · Post by **LarryP** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:01 pm

Like the thread title says... I own Commander Europe At War and I don't like it. What reasons are there for me to like this? Same engine. Looks a lot the same to me. [&:] [8|]

Erik Rutins · Post by **Erik Rutins** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 5:09 pm

If you didn't like CEAW at all, you probably won't like this. The gameplay is similar, it's of a similar scale and detail, but it covers the Napoleonic Wars rather than WWII. If you think the subject matter was the issue with CEAW, then you may enjoy this. It also has a somewhat more combined arms feel with the artillery and cavalry support, but overall liking/not liking CEAW is a fair barometer.

A lot of people did enjoy CEAW a whole lot and for them I think this is the ideal game for fighting out the Napoleonic wars. It's fundamentally a "Beer and Pretzels" kind of wargame, easy to learn, fun to play.

LarryP · Post by **LarryP** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:47 pm

Thanks Erik for your honesty. CEaW has too little micromanagement for my liking. What is there in the game is done well, except for the resource management menus. They are kind of hard to understand. I like the looks of the map and units in this new game better.

I'm looking forward to some posts that compare the two. [X(]

Toby42 · Post by **Toby42** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:49 pm

I could never get the Demo for CEaW to run on my computer without locking it up. The game also seemed too much like Strategic Command!

LarryP · Post by **LarryP** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:55 pm

I have Strategic Command, all four (original, sequel, 2 expansions) and I love those games.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 7:58 pm

Commander Europe at War is nothing like Strategic Command.

The game has potential to be a great game but design decisions were made and is instead is a good game.

Napoleon Europe at War is of course set at a different time. There are no strategic bombers, no submarines, No D-Day and no lend lease. It has the potential to be a great game!

Toby42 · Post by **Toby42** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 8:25 pm

Full strength units at 10. No stacking. No combined attack. Airpower able to completely destroy a unit. I'm sure that there are other similarities. Anyway, close enough for me. And no, I didn't care for SC. Just me. I'm sure that the series are good games. Just not for me!!

LarryP · Post by **LarryP** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:55 pm

ORIGINAL: Treale

And no, I didn't care for SC. Just me. I'm sure that the series are good games. Just not for me!!

I didn't like SC2 after I played it the first time. After going back to it a few times and not giving up since I had spent money on it [;)], I began to like the historical value. After that they grew on my kind of like a fungus.

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Mon Sep 29, 2008 11:58 pm

ORIGINAL: Treale
Full strength units at 10.

You're phrase has no meaning. Units from time to time are at full strength. The designers chose that "10" is full strength. They could have chosen "6" or "4" or "87".

ORIGINAL: Treale
No stacking.

As you havn't played the game you cannot see that is a strength. It enhances the interface. Because they cannot stack there are fewer units on the map making it easier to play.

ORIGINAL: Treale
No combined attack.

Any unit can be attacked more than one time in a turn by ground units capable of making an attack. Effectivly it is a combined attack one in another way. It is sensible to make an attack with air units, then an attack by infantry then finally with armour where the plan is for the armour to force a break through. "combined arms" is the correct phrase.

ORIGINAL: Treale
Airpower able to completely destroy a unit.

Not correct. Unless you use you're whole airfoce to attack one unit. The purpose of the bombers is to attack strategic targets and then the enemy has fewer production points on his following turn.

-

Toby42 · Post by **Toby42** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:50 am

Good Morning Joe. The only game that I own of that genre, is SC. I've tried the demo(s) of SC2 and CEaW. I didn't care for SC and the other demo's didn't get me excited either. I am waffling on this title (C-NaW) just because I don't have anything about the Napoleonic Era. I need some more specific's on it though! I was about ready to download K:DoTD when this came out. Now I have to think about this again...

Fred98 · Post by **Fred98** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:08 am

ORIGINAL: Treale
I was about ready to download K:DoTD when this came out. Now I have to think about this again...

If it is one or the other then go for SSG's Kharhov, Disaster on the Donetz [:)]

-

Toby42 · Post by **Toby42** » Tue Sep 30, 2008 11:34 am

ORIGINAL: Joe 98

ORIGINAL: Treale
I was about ready to download K:DoTD when this came out. Now I have to think about this again...

If it is one or the other then go for SSG's Kharhov, Disaster on the Donetz [:)]

-

You generally can't go wrong with an offering from SSG..

If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?

RE: If I didn't like CEaW, why would I like this?