Commander - Napoleon at War

[cdbeck]

I doubt that "grand campaign" is a good word here, if you mean control social growth, town development, tech development and the like, such as in Crown of Glory. Seeing that you really only controlled the WAR aspect of WWII in C:EaW, with a minor diplomatic element, no trade, and a simplified tech development - ergo - I don't see that C:NaW will have town development, trade, etc. I do see that they have some extra resources (although horse, to me, can be seen as analogous to oil in C:EaW). So I would not expect the Hearts of Iron 2 of Napoelonic warfare (wouldn't that be a nice game, though - I feel EU3 just doesn't cut it diplomatically speaking). I would like to see C:NaW add some sort of diplomatic engine - other than "peace/war" toggle switch - as this was a HUGE part of the Napoleonic period. Heck, Tallyrand himself, as a diplomat and "double agent" had almost as big a hand in the way things happened as the battles did.

Incidentally, did you all know that Napoleon once called Tallyrand a "piece of shit in a silk stocking?" [:D]

SoM

[PunkReaper]

I think the Commander soon to be series is a good game and I will probably go for it but I feel it may have been nice if they had gone for the Roman Empire period instead of the well trod Napoleonic path.

[marcusm]

So not Mediaval then .

Still think they should drop the Java based platform. Why couldn't they just build
on their old engine?

[PunkReaper]

Felt a bit embarrassed about mentioning a medieval game again so I thought I'd vary it by throwing in a bit of a Roman timeline. Well spotted.

[Joram]

LOL Lava.  Do we get to ride mammoths into battle like that new movie 10,000 BC coming out!

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Joram

LOL Lava. Do we get to ride mammoths into battle like that new movie 10,000 BC coming out!

[;)]

Mammoths are kewl!

Though I wouldn't want to see Pterodactyls... flying stuff always throws the game out of balance IMO.

[:)]

Ray (alias Lava)

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Punk Reaper

I think the Commander soon to be series is a good game and I will probably go for it but I feel it may have been nice if they had gone for the Roman Empire period instead of the well trod Napoleonic path.

I would argue the Roman Empire path is just as well trodden, particularly with the Paradox take on it 'coming soon'.

[ravinhood]

Yeah can you believe I'm actually looking forward to a Paradox game? lol Crusader Kings is pretty good although the Dues Vult expansion has it's problems and Johan hasn't fixed them yet after all these months. So, probably 9 months after release or if it hits .99 cents I'll take a look at getting EU:Rome.

[Grell]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

Yeah can you believe I'm actually looking forward to a Paradox game? lol Crusader Kings is pretty good although the Dues Vult expansion has it's problems and Johan hasn't fixed them yet after all these months. So, probably 9 months after release or if it hits .99 cents I'll take a look at getting EU:Rome.

EU III and EU Rome are of no interest to me. I've gotten to the point that Paradox games just don't cut it anymore for me.

Regards,

Grell

[ravinhood]

I sorta like the NEW EU, hated the old format. Games like HOI and Victoria were pretty crappy with the old engine. Like the new 3D look, now they just need to add more hands on combat engine like the Total War engine.

[Grell]

You know what, I was probably the only person on the planet that liked Victoria. LOL!

Regards,

Grell

[marcusm]

There is a following but I personally have higher hopes for Vainglory of Nations.

Phil has the correct inspiration source, Pax Britannica. This is the game to base all Imperial/Colonial era
games on.

[Phatguy]

ORIGINAL: Hertston

ORIGINAL: Joram

I'm not sure if that engine can properly reflect the Napoleonic era. I'd be interested in a hex-based Napoleonic game for sure but right now I'm not sold on this one. If they don't have a grand campaign, then I'm definitely out!

What is this obsession with 'grand campaigns'? I saw exactly the same thing in relation to the AGEOD game where such a thing clearly doesn't belong even more obviously than might be the case here. Compare and contrast with the American Civil War game from the same people. The phrase "Napoleonic Wars" has an 's' on the end for a reason.. they were NOT a 'grand campaign'.

Well, I for one prefer "grand campaign" style games.Part of it is the feeling I get that i'm getting more bang for my buck. I'd much prefer to play the eastern front 41-45 100 times(lets use GG's War in Russia as an example)than Kursk 50 times. To me that would be boring.Same old same old...More options. I would not drop forty bucks on yet another version of waterloo but would drop 40 or so on a grand campaign style game .

just my 3.4 cents

[*Lava*]

Well..

From what I understand, there are grand campaigns. The player merely selects the starting date and off you go... to the bitter end.

Ray (alias Lava)

[Joram]

That would be cool, but then I just go back to my original thoughts on whether the engine itself is appropriate for the era.  Guess will have to wait and see and play the demo.   I did like C:EaW.  Despite some balance issues, it was a great beer and pretzels game. 

[ravinhood]

Ever since I guess Squad Leader from then on I've just grown closer and closer to tactical and grand tactical games. I don't know how you guys can play these simulations or grand campaign games any longer since they are almost always the same. Like Korsun Pocket? I mean how many times can you play that and it not be the SAME? Even these ETO and WTO ones are the same after just a couple of plays. Germany starts out strong and then gets waylayed at the end. The only way those are fun is if you remove the restrictions of Russia and USA entering the war and that just makes it even more lopsidded earlier for the Germans.
But, tactical with random maps and random unit setups and constructions man that's the way to go for me. Every battle is different, every situation is different. Every objective is different. I could play Combat Mission till I die and never grow bored of it. Same with Steel Panthers W@W. I really hope someone does Memoir 44 for the PC too cause that looks like a lot of random generated fun as well. I'm also looking foward to Kharkov because it's going to offer up what is great about tactical battle games another Quick type Battle generator.
 
So, grand campaign games (unless it's tactical grand campaign game like Medieval Total War origional) are boring and simulations of a specific battle are the ultimate boring (once you've played them a couple of times). Unless they add a lot of OPTIONS like "Forge of Freedom" and the outcome isn't the same every game and has TACTICAL battles in it as well.
 
So what Matrixgames needs to make are more tactical games with random battle map generators and random unit generators and random unit structures in various eras of history. Man we could use a Napoleonic game like this...where's the randoms for the Napoleonic era? Any era for that matter where tactical can be played out instead of grand this and grand that.

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: Grell

You know what, I was probably the only person on the planet that liked Victoria. LOL!

Regards,

Grell

I liked, and still like, Victoria. Especially so after Revolutions.

SoM