My Reiew

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan
I would not say that CEAW was liked by grognards but yes I get your points.

CEAW got an honourfull 5th place in UseNet's War-Historical newsgroup WOTY 2007 election. That place is as grog as it gets ... and then some.

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan
I think if a review is that critical (again my opinion) I do not think that person can expect to be praised and saluted [&o] by the ppl it involves [;)]

Well, it's your baby, so you're bound to be proud of it, but I think that in the long run you're better off saluting the guy who openly says it only got one ear as you can then take corrective action to get this fixed instead of listening to people who tell you everything is fine.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[firepowerjohan]

I think there is no way to say what is right or wrong, it is a matter of taste. It is obvious that ppl like Spadman and Ronson exist and that they do not care about too much abstractions. Everything is not fine (with the game, with any new game) so we listen to game balance, AI issues and fix them. However, things like stacking is more about style of play and design decisions, the fundaments of the gameplay. There is no saying that ppl should not play certain styles of games simply because it is not historical enough. Let them decide and let that be said also in the reviews. Spadman and Ron, not all of them are just beginners that is my impression. [;)]

[Erik Rutins]

Well, I consider myself a grognard, but I also find CNAW to be fun. I don't fire up CNAW for hard-core Napoleonic Wars simulation, that's for Crown of Glory: Emperor's Edition and Empires in Arms (and some Napoleon in Italy). However, for fun light wargaming, it's got everything IMHO that CEAW had.

Here's how I visualize it and it definitely requires some abstraction or perhaps suspension of disbelief: the system as adapted to the Napoleonic period in effect turns part of the strategic map into a grand-tactical battlefield once armies meet. Without having to go to a new "detailed combat" mode or something like that, the basic interactions between the different arms (infantry, cavalry and artillery) in this era are represented.

Because of the low unit density, you don't generally have "front lines" across the map like you did in CEAW, so you can imagine that the portion of the map where the battle is happening is now in effect a different scale, a smaller battlefield rather than a 400-500km stretch of the map. The terrain still applies, the armies maneuver their components, etc.

I realize this kind of abstraction isn't for everyone, but for me it's workable and I think CNAW is a much less intimidating intro to Napoleonic wargaming for non-waragmers than the other games in our catalog. I agree with Iain and Johan that there's been a need for more introductory wargames and the Commander series fills this need well.

Regards,

- Erik

[firepowerjohan]

Also, the unit density is reduced by 10%-20% in patch (actually by increasing prices and upkeep values) to give even more space to maneuver around the 150x72 map, so that as Erik says front lines cannot be maintained.

There are 6 scenarios (6 out of 8) also that are less than 20 turns for short battles a la Panzer General. Certainly a casual gamer or average gamer would want to hear about how these played out. I mean, we do not say that Panzer General is too simplistic when playing a PG battle scenario.

Commander series is not ideal for grognards but you might actually like it despite being grognard, that is a big difference. Just as some wargamers play RTS despite it is not their main interest.

[vonRocko]

Instead of patting each other on the back for a job well done, why don't you work on an OFFICIAL patch that fixes this dreadful AI? Game engine is fine,(unlike the latest abomination,WW1). [:(]

[Erik Rutins]

vonRocko,

The official patch is constantly being worked on - you can download the public beta right now if you'd like to check on the progress, the AI there is already much improved.

Regards,

- Erik

[PDiFolco]

Just to add my pinch of salt, I must admit that I can surely be called "grognard", but I played and enjoyed CEAW, even more than SC2 (the squares really were a gamebreaker for me..).
But I've not even be interested in trying CNAW just because of the issues mentioned by some here : no stacking (huh, did they make fronts in Nappy's era ?), no combined attacks, arty firing 100km+ away, ship armadas spawning from Cadix to the Azores or not far ...

So the problem for me is not that the game is or not "too simple", but just has to be a believable recreation of Napoleonic wars, and it doesn't look like it.

[Adam Parker]

To the Slitherine guys:
 
I really do appreciate where you're coming from - easy to play, hard to master. I love it, I'm a big fan of it and in PC gaming we need more of it!
 
But if I may give some advice (and it's not my development money up for stakes here) but you would have been better off not looking at your system and said where else can we port it to era-wise? But looked at a boardgame like Tactics 2 and give the market that.
 
That seems to be where your intent lies but you would have pulled it off much better, putting your spin on the world of "Red Army vs Blue Army" across generic maps, rather than trying to force Napoleonics into a scale which just doesn't work.
 
Advance Tactics is an ugly retro design of a PC wargame imo. You could have created a market for that type of game all on your own. You still can.

[pzgndr]

The commander games are soft wargames for a wider market. The grognards constantly complain about the lack of new blood in the hobby and when something that might appeal to them comes along they pick it apart because it doesn't accurately simulate the war

So the problem for me is not that the game is or not "too simple", but just has to be a believable recreation of Napoleonic wars, and it doesn't look like it.

"Soft" wargames are well and good. But I also agree here that a simulated conflict should produce believeable results to some degree. Else you're just banging a square peg into a round hole and it looks ugly.

IMHO, CNAW could have more potential if the scale is adjusted. Either provide a bigger map for all the units, or reduce the number of units. At the current grand strategy scale, fewer corps (historical numbers even!) of basic infantry/cavalry/artillery should be fine. All the different unit types and research is interesting and can be fun in its own way, but really isn't necessary at this scale. I don't know about modding the map, but it should be possible to create a mod to restrict unit types and adjust production for a somewhat more historical feel. My point is that a soft wargame might not need a high grognard rating, but give a modder a few decent editting tools and perhaps a fast&fun game can also become a more realistic game as well.

I generally like the CEAW/CNAW interface and simple game mechanics. My suggestion would be to keep doing what you're doing but also support some parallel development towards more realism and historical accuracy to appeal to grogs? The gap may not be too wide.

[spadman]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

Spadman and Ron, not all of them are just beginners that is my impression. [;)]

I thought I would comment on what kind of gamer I was to get an idea why I like this game so much. I am someone who likes the Campaign Series as well as Battles in Normandy type of game so I am not necessarily a beginner (although I play like one but I have really enjoyed this game for just a time to come home from work and enjoy a "game". Yes I said a "game" not a simulation of war.
I am working on learning Uncommon Valor so I enjoy the serious wargame but I really like to just play a "game" from time to time.
I am not trying to be a jerk with my comments just a simple statement about what games should be about sometimes - fun.
BTW, I love to sit down on my couch and pass the laptop back in forth between myself and my two sons -age 9, 11 - and have a fun game that my kids really enjoy and can begin a career in wargames.
Spadman

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
I agree with Iain and Johan that there's been a need for more introductory wargames and the Commander series fills this need well.

No argument there - on the contrary - it's one of the points I keep harping on that most wargame developers seem to always want to make monster games with a difficulty level off the charts, while there's a significant demand out there for simpler, quick-playing games.

This game fills that demand - absolutely - but the point I was trying to get across is that trying to market it to the "grog" segment is counter-productive.

Companies like Avalon Hill used to categorize their games according to a difficulty level, which really was a "grog" level, so that people looking for a simple game wouldn't buy Third Reich or Squad Leader and be hugely disappointed and never buy from them again. Conversely, people into Squad Leader were told that Tactics II wasn't for them for the same reason.

Or to use an analogy : If you're selling fruit you might convince an apple-buying customer to buy a banana when you tell him it tastes just like an apple, but you'll never see him in your shop again afterwards when he finds out. So what's gained in the short run is lost in the long run.

If your game is a banana, market it as a banana.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Adam Parker]

And the other thing that Avalon Hill did with their Level 1 and 2 games was to ensure that their outcomes were historically educational.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
And the other thing that Avalon Hill did with their Level 1 and 2 games was to ensure that their outcomes were historically educational.

I'm reading the first years of The General magazine currently, and while the educational angle was stressed (no doubt for marketing reasons - wanting parents to buy their kids "educational" games), the historical angle was usually covered by sending a guy to the library an afternoon (literally) to get an OOB and a map. That's why many of their early games have such glaring historical errors.

They did seek out famous generals to go over and endorse their games though - McAuliffe for the Bulge game and IIRC MacArthur for Midway. Now, there's an idea ... [;)]

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[IainMcNeil]

Exactly, its about fun. If you don't get it then fine - don't play. No problem! You don't have to spend time to justify not liking it by picking out historical abstractions you're not comfortable with. Just don't play
 
Fun is sadly lacking in the majority of wargames these days and instead there is excessive detail, accuracy and scale. I don't want a job - I have one already - give me a break and some fun!

[vonRocko]

Fun is lacking because the computer game industry consistantly put out incomplete games! They always need patches.Very seldom is there a rulebook manual that adaquately explains the game. They hype (lie?) the games capabilities on the box and prior to release, then you find the game rarely matches their description.
Game companies take the fun out the first time I have to mess with files and deal with dead AI,s, Then I have to work at fixing their product! And I PAY for this!
Maybe when companies start releasing complete games, the fun will return!
I might be getting cynical as I age,but after several purchases,just in this year, of incomplete or unplayable games, I'm really getting disgusted.
It seems to be getting worse,not better,industry wide!
JUst my opinion, Thanks