Is this for me or not ?

[scout1]

Been following this forum for some time and just can't quite get my arms around whether this game would be a keeper for me or not.

I'm addicted to WitP and the DB series. Bought GGWaW but just couldn't get past the abstraction so didn't stay on my hard drive long. Anyone else have the same experience
who also has formed an Opinion about COG ?

[Zap]

Same situation, except for not addicted to WitP. I just prefer more detailed (complexity) in my games GGWaW did not meet that. GGWaW sits unplayed. CoG is the same level of complexity(intermediate) as GGWaW

[Hertston]

I'm not sure "complexity" has much to do with it. It shouldn't be confused with simplicity (or detail) for a start. Unlike WitP, the DB games aren't particularly complex, which is one reason why they work so well IMHO. Game "depth" is determined by your range of choices and a multiplicity of viable approaches within the game rules, not how many rules there are. Look at chess - simple rules, but not a "complex" game?!

What CoG is, compared the wargames you mention, is somewhat abstract; less so than GGWaW and more so than WitP. I can't think of any game dealing with the same scope of subject matter that isn't abstract to some degree - they have to be. CoG is a strategy game set in Napoleonic Europe, not a realistic simulation of that period, or a wargame. If that's what you want, you'll have fun with the game. If it isn't, you won't.

[Zap]

Thanks for clarifying my not so developed thoughts on this matter. Maybe the better term is "game depth" as you stated.
But for me the experience has to give a flavor of the battle or war as it happened in history. As one member states(Wodin) the (immersion factor).
It may not always be true, that complexity or detail enhances game play. As your example well shows (chess).
But I use those two words to describe how I like to experience my game playing. Be it on whatever level. I enjoy strategic, tactical, which give me a feel for the real thing(battle).

Darn you Herston, for forcing me to galvanize my thoughts on this[:)]. headache!
I will attempt in the future to do better.
I can only say in that my like for GGWaW is not high and the two games share the same complexity level. I judge from that fact that I may not like CoG. Since I bought GGWaW I have toyed with the idea of owning CoG to see if the experience is different but it takes me a lot of time to decide. I'm slow in my thinking process and decision making on everything. I guess thats why I like turn- based games the best.

[Hertston]

The complexity levels are only a guide, and IMHO are far more useful for gamers who DON'T want the detail levels of something like WitP, so they know what to avoid. That doesn't work the same way the other way around; WitP players do generally enjoy many less detailed games as well. Matrix publish several pure wargames that are less "complex" than GGWaW.. the Tin Soldiers games (of which I'm a huge fan) and Flashpoint Germany are both rated "basic", for example. All three are great wargames - they are just easy to learn (but hard to master, as the saying goes !), and quick and smooth to play. The difference is that they are less abstract; invariably because the subject matter is a lot less focused than "WW2" or "Napoleonic Europe".

The secret to a good wargame or strategy game is not making it as detailed as possible, but in fact quite the reverse - keeping it simple. The big proviso is that 'simple' is relative, not an absolute; as simple as the game engine, style and scenario require. That's as true of WitP as it is of Tin Soldiers.

Personally, I'd recommend CoG. I havn't had time to play that much, but when I have I've enjoyed it more than any other 'non-wargame' strategy game I have (other than Dominions 2, perhaps). You might not like it, but you always take that chance, I guess.