RE: Not to be too critical but....
Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:59 am
In response to Nick R's opening post: if you're after a more "complete" simulation of WW2 than C:EaW, I'd recommend Hearts of Iron 2 by Paradox. All of the things you mention - like being able to avoid war between various major powers, having more realistic commanders and a more realistic economy and so on - are covered pretty well by it.
Personally I overall prefer C:EaW though, because it's been designed as a game with a WW2 theme rather than as a "simulation" of the whole thing, which means that it's quicker to play, easier to understand, and better balanced as a game. There's a great article by Bruce Geryk which sums up a lot of what I would want to say about it:
http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/195/
Money quote: "I am not the general. I am some guy. I just want to play a game, at the end of which the person who performed the best game analysis without solving a third-order differential equation wins. I don’t want to be trained in modern military tactics, even though I know this will be important later when the United Nations invades and someone has to figure out how to recapture Cleveland. I want to have fun playing a game, and if the 180th Volkssturm Regiment couldn’t really get to Dinant and sometimes the Allies lose the war, I don’t feel hurt or disillusioned. I feel this way even though I know it means I’m crazy and a jerk."
I think C:EaW isn't perfect as a game, but I think what it's trying to do is both worth doing and fundamentally different from what a game like HoI is trying to do. I enjoy games like HoI too, but they scratch a different itch... also, I can't start up a game of it unless I know I'm about to have a huge amount of free time on my hands.
Personally I overall prefer C:EaW though, because it's been designed as a game with a WW2 theme rather than as a "simulation" of the whole thing, which means that it's quicker to play, easier to understand, and better balanced as a game. There's a great article by Bruce Geryk which sums up a lot of what I would want to say about it:
http://www.quartertothree.com/inhouse/columns/195/
Money quote: "I am not the general. I am some guy. I just want to play a game, at the end of which the person who performed the best game analysis without solving a third-order differential equation wins. I don’t want to be trained in modern military tactics, even though I know this will be important later when the United Nations invades and someone has to figure out how to recapture Cleveland. I want to have fun playing a game, and if the 180th Volkssturm Regiment couldn’t really get to Dinant and sometimes the Allies lose the war, I don’t feel hurt or disillusioned. I feel this way even though I know it means I’m crazy and a jerk."
I think C:EaW isn't perfect as a game, but I think what it's trying to do is both worth doing and fundamentally different from what a game like HoI is trying to do. I enjoy games like HoI too, but they scratch a different itch... also, I can't start up a game of it unless I know I'm about to have a huge amount of free time on my hands.