Matrix Games Forums

I think that we need to know how this differs from SC2 or how it does it better?

This is exactly what I'm thinking...to me, this game just looks like a suped-up Strategic Command. Although I don't mean that neccessarily in a bad way, I would love to know what sets this game apart; besides the graphics, which incidentally, look absolutely fantastic.
I have to say, one thing that is bugging me already is that it looks like you can't have more than one unit type in a hex...I don't know a damn thing about programming, but it just seems incredible that this couldn't be accomplished. The whole idea of the Ardennes Offensive is kind of a joke (as it was in SC) becuase you can't assemble a high concentration of forces in one area.

Love to hear anyone's thoughts...I'm ready for a new game, I'd love for it to be this one!!

We will see. Stacking units was possible as early as PG 1 so it should not be a problem. Cuz of the time scale IMHO ZOC's or reaction movements can solve the stacking problem.

It was not a technical issue but one of user interface design. We wanted to keep the controls very user friendly and this went against the idea of stacking. Please visit our forum to see discussions on the subject
 
 

ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior

We will see. Stacking units was possible as early as PG 1 so it should not be a problem. Cuz of the time scale IMHO ZOC's or reaction movements can solve the stacking problem.

Not exactly. In PG you were able to put an air unit on top of a ground unit but you weren't able to stack land units.

I stand corrected. I remember now the switch between land and air units.

Yeah, I remember that...even that would be cool for this game...at this scale, it just seems to make more sense.

Understandable...it's definitely easier to grasp when it's "what you see is what you get"...no units "hiding" underneath other units!

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

It was not a technical issue but one of user interface design. We wanted to keep the controls very user friendly and this went against the idea of stacking. Please visit our forum to see discussions on the subject

ORIGINAL: Iain McNeil

It was not a technical issue but one of user interface design. We wanted to keep the controls very user friendly and this went against the idea of stacking. Please visit our forum to see discussions on the subject

[:)]I have read and re-read your forum and no matter what anybody says i agree with your philosophy 110%. i have been gaming for years, and have bought both Matrixs' and Slitherines' first games (96% of them since), and as i get older i want to enjoy more wargaming with less counter-pushing. It's time to go "Old School", not everything new and shiny is neccessarily better IMHO[8D]. Aside from your track record and all the games you've made i still enjoy, your game philosophy has made this title one i will purchase immediately.

What is this SC game ... ?????
[8|]
IDG

ORIGINAL: IrishDragoonGuards

What is this SC game ... ?????
[8|]
IDG

I suppose it stays for Strategic Command

What else could it possibly be?[:D] 
 
I will thoroughly be surprised if this first edition is anywhere as good as Strategic Command 2, but very happy that it is, if so.
 
SC2, while not perfect, provides for a very delicate balance of competition, mandated by what your opponent does and not by some preconceived path of player's options.  Yes, there are some dictated steps that may produce a spirited contest the majority of the time, but to follow them and not evolve your strategy to your opponent's moves is a recipe for disaster.
 
Kind of like it is in the real world.

I don't like knocking games but this better be way better than SC2. SC was a great game and I looked forward to SC2 but it just did not make the grade.

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

What else could it possibly be?[:D] 

I will thoroughly be surprised if this first edition is anywhere as good as Strategic Command 2, but very happy that it is, if so.

SC2, while not perfect, provides for a very delicate balance of competition, mandated by what your opponent does and not by some preconceived path of player's options.  Yes, there are some dictated steps that may produce a spirited contest the majority of the time, but to follow them and not evolve your strategy to your opponent's moves is a recipe for disaster.

Kind of like it is in the real world.

What else could it possibly be?

I will thoroughly be surprised if this first edition is anywhere as good as Strategic Command 2, but very happy that it is, if so.

SC2, while not perfect, provides for a very delicate balance of competition, mandated by what your opponent does and not by some preconceived path of player's options. Yes, there are some dictated steps that may produce a spirited contest the majority of the time, but to follow them and not evolve your strategy to your opponent's moves is a recipe for disaster.

Kind of like it is in the real world.

Is this the real world ..??? [;)]
Adaptability with playability being the key ... and a random start by whatever means necessary ... will ultimetely lead to a game that in itself will come about as such ...!!
Why .. different strategies .. units ..
Options and flexability within the overall structure ... and a balanced game in all aspects are the basics ... the game must upgrade and expand upon not just the player .. but the game in itself ..
SC was not able to do this .. [&:] .. the editor should be able to create numerous differing situations .. not just more challenging .. but .. new .. add a good player in and there ya go ... Just dont think an AI will be able to play ... yet anyway ..[:-]
[X(]
IDG

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I don't like knocking games but this better be way better than SC2. SC was a great game and I looked forward to SC2 but it just did not make the grade.

SC was a great game, but to me SC2 just looked so lame (squares instead of hexes? c'mon) that I didn't buy it...it didn't seem to be that much different of a game...well, I'm feeling that with this game. The game LOOKS great, but I keep asking myself, What is different about this game? What is it about the game play that makes it different from SC? The comparisons to SC can't be helped because this game looks so much like it...even the interface seems somewhat familiar, I feel like I could play this game without reading a single word in the manual...

ORIGINAL: TPM

The game LOOKS great, but I keep asking myself, What is different about this game? What is it about the game play that makes it different from SC?

[:)]Hopefully very soon i will be able to answer those questions for you free of charge[;)].

SC was a great game, but to me SC2 just looked so lame (squares instead of hexes? c'mon) that I didn't buy it...it didn't seem to be that much different of a game...well, I'm feeling that with this game. The game LOOKS great, but I keep asking myself, What is different about this game? What is it about the game play that makes it different from SC? The comparisons to SC can't be helped because this game looks so much like it...even the interface seems somewhat familiar, I feel like I could play this game without reading a single word in the manual...

I'll chime in here. What exactly is the WWII ETO grand strategy gamer looking for? Despite its faults, AH Third Reich remains a gold standard for being a relatively simple and playable simulation. War in Europe and World In Flames and others proved a bit more complicated but also achieved popularity.

Porting such games to the computer has been a challenge. Third Reich PC in the early 90's was a disappointment. Clash of Steel came along and proved popular. But as DOS gave way to Windows, a void formed. Strategic Command entered the scene and was a fun game. Strategic Command 2 resolved many weaknesses and added new features, for better or worse. Competing with SC series is the HOI series and the GGWAW series, both interesting games in themselves but still not exactly Third Reich. Now we're seeing Commander - Europe At War and Making History - The Calm and The Storm about to be released. And down the road is Matrix's version of WiF and an updated PC version of WIE by Decision Games, albeit without AI. Where once we had a void several years ago, today we have lots of choices. Different scales and scopes from ETO to global, turn-based or pauseable real-time or whatever, hexes or tiles or provinces, single country playable or playable as sides, etc.

Given the current state of affairs, how can any new game be significantly different than what is now available or pending? That's probably an unrealistic expectation. It's also an unrealistic expectation that any one game is going to completely satisfy whatever vision one may have personally for what he wants. And it's also a bit arrogant to try to impose one's vision on everybody else and criticize game developers for not doing this or doing that. Heck, go out and make your own game or make your own mod and see what you can do rather than piss and moan.

In fairness, although I've been involved with playtesting the SC series for several years, CEAW looks refreshing and I'm interested in playing it. I have not been enthusiastic about the HOI genre, and I'm not particularly interested in the full global game despite GGWAW-AWD being OK to play occassionally. I remain an old school AH Third Reich fan. For me, SC2 has been pretty good, and good enough to embark on making a playable Third Reich mod with a challenging and variable computer opponent for both Axis and Allies. The new SC2-WaW expansion is even better with additional unit types, more customization in the Editor, and a much improved AI. For me, I believe SC2-WaW will finally give me the PC Third Reich game I've been looking for, and my expectations are set pretty high.

Maybe CEAW, with hexes, will be comparable. We'll see. Either which way, we're all about to have another nice WWII ETO grand strategy game added to our collection. Players will gravitate to whatever suits their fancy. Competition is healthy and players have a choice. That's a good thing.

Well said pzgndr...you're right on the money. We all have different ideas of what the "perfect" WWII grand strategy game is, and I think we (I) get dissapointed when a new game comes out, and it's not EXACTLY what we want...when I first saw "Commander" I thought, "Will this be it? The perfect WWII grand strategy game that I've been waiting for? That perfect blend of Clash of Steel and HOI, with a little bit of TOAW sprinkled on top?" etc., etc. I know, it's ridiculous...I guess after playing dozens of these games (High Command, COS, GGWAW, etc., etc.) you start to form an idea of what would really make a great game...a combination of all these games...

Anyway, as you said, we've got a lot of choices nowadays, and for that we should be thankful..."Commander" is most likely a great game, and despite my nit-picking, I am looking forward to it!

Sorry but isn't "Making History - The Calm and The Storm " alrready released?
Anyone have any experiencewith this ambitious game?

I was my intention buying it, but CeAW look so much better that I decided to wait and see for MHCaS