Matrix Games Forums

What is absolutely necessary ... for a game to last for years .. [:(]

A game that is going to last and still be challenging and essentially adaptable to options which create numerous situations .. pre .. during and post historical.

1936 - 1939 Axis and Allied Minors, resources, pacts for examples.
1939 - 1945 War .. OOB .. DoW's .. Tech .. National Strength's .. Force Pools
1945 - ???? Victory Conditions ..

What conditions need to be addressed so a well develpoed game will last and still have great playability in 20 years .. and then just upgrade it ...[X(]

For me CEaW will fit the bill: the feel and gameplay of Panzer General on a strategic scale, with production, research etc...I have been waiting a loooong time for such a game.  HoI and GGWW are good games, but this one, watch out[:'(]!

The game begins on 1st September 1939.
 
-
 
 

I posted this the day after I played the game for the first time ... [:)]
IDG

IRE

Where is the Luftwaffe [&:]
IDG

Bumpie bump ...
IDG

Let's see......one that has the fundamentals correct IMO.
 
for example airforces were usualy not organised as strategic games do it now - into nice tidy groups of fighters and bombers - 8th airforce had 8th bomber command and 8th fighter command - those fighters were used solely to escort the bombers (at least for as long as there were LW fighters around in significant numbers!!), while 9th AF similarly had bomber and fighter commands, but the fighters there were grouped into TACTICAL fighter commands - ie they were tasked with tactical ops as well as escorting their own bombers when required.
 
Certainly fighter command of the RAF was organised differently, but German Luftflottes weer somewhat similar, as was the Desert Airforce.
 
Neither of het strategic WW2 games I play at the moment allow such an organisation.
 
the fundamentals of hte naval war need addressing too - I shall probably go to my grave maintaining that treating ships as if they were land units that can move on water is wrong.  Most naval units sortied from a given base and returned to that base fairly shortly thereafter - eg U-boats would spend a few weeks in the Atlantic before returning to Brest or wherever.  So they should be based in Brest IMO - you'd then tell them where to operate ("home waters", Atlantic, US Coast, Sth Atlantic, Indian ocean, wherever...) and then a portion of them would actually attack shipping there - the further away it was the smaller the portion attacking would be (the rest are in transit there and back)
 
Escorts and sub-hunting groups would operate in a simlar manner - eg escorts from the UK would be given an area they would escort convoys in - and they'd attack any subs that attack convoys in that area.  Sub-hunter groups would attack any sub they find in the area ......but have a lower chance of finding any sub in particular (assuming it's easier to find subs around convoys!)
 
Stacking is a must!![8|]
 
Representing the home front is a must too - there weer over 1 million people emplyed in the strategic defence of the Reich in 1944....in CEAW you don't see any of them - in the competing product you can at least add AA defences to cities that cost resources.
 
I'm personally not a fan of 1-10 point land units - booooooooring PG cloning!![:(]  How about using divisions or brigades for strength measures or somethign like that, and allowing however many in a unit you want - you can put in tank ones or infanry ones, with or without artillery......
 
That's enough for now....to paraphrase someone else - I could go on [;)]

Check out WiF .. [X(]
IDG

Regretfully, I suspect this game will fall by the wayside as many have.  It has some good things which makes it fun but it has some serious problems that will eventually make it one you drop in favor of the next new game.
 
I have played CWIE which as far as I can tell the oldest computer wargame still played regularly.  It was release in 95.  I have played it since then and still play it daily.  It was War in Europe ported to computer.  There is no AI no fancy graphics just a solid historical simulation of WWII.  It's simplified portral of air and navy is poor but seems to be acceptable.  I believe the success of the game is directly related to the fact that the game plays historically.  The Axis very rarely wins but he is able to do most of what was done in the war.  The map size puts all games at awe. 
 
This game does not attempt to recreate history which many on the boards say they like but the games that have lasted not only CWIE but the board games also always attempted to simulate history.  Without an attempt at history the game will always be a game and not a simulation so the gamers who always move on to the next new thing.  The wargames who are attempting to beat a simulation of history will move on because balance is not the issue it is beating history that they want to do.
 
Certainly simulations are not perfect but without them you dont get the feel that you beat what the world said couldnt be done.  Playing Axis you want to defeat Russia or England make better headway in Africa etc to have that feeling.  Playing Allies you want to hold France, Russia wants to take Berlin and you want to get to Berllin before the Allies did.
 
The poor represntation of PBEM doesnt immerse you into the game so you loose alot with the present presentation. 
 
The commanders idea seems good but they make them so expensive that I for one rarely find the cost worthwhile.  I doubt from what I have experienced these commanders will add enough for the points.  I do buy the cheap ones once in awhile.
 
Those should really be free.  There salary was really part of the units no big bonus was paid them to account for paying for them.
 
Convoy is great but again gets very little use.  Subs to expensive to buy so no real use.  Ships overall feel wrong.  Capital ships need to be named as in the real war.  Carriers are so far off I will ignore complain about them again.  Lack of cruisers weird.  Destroyers kewl.  Battelship use is also strange.  They just dont seem like supply ships to me.  No amph huge problem.
 
I could go on for pages but these are just a few of the things that will cause this game to fall by the wayside overtime.  20 years game I doubt seriously.  If it is still being played heavily after 20 months I will be greatly surprised.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

After reading all of your post I conclude that you simply don't like the game. Its your choice and you have the right to say it, however be aware that we got the message, so why dont take a break mm? [;)]

We respect your opinion Targul, but our goal is not to please all different sorts of players and make a game that fits all. There are plenty of WW2 games out there and if you think the focus of CEaW is wrong then it is most likely quicker to pick some other game with other focus than to wait and try to convert CEaW into something that it isn't.

If you want more historical accuracy for good or worse then there are already ways of doing that in the game both using options or using mods. We believe that if we make the game too realistic with 4:1 economic advantages in favour of the Allies then some ppl would be happy but also alot of others that like the competetive side of gaming would not like it. Frankly it is very possible to make mods where Axis have much better units by adjusting organisation levels and techs and instead compensate by bumping up the USSR and USA economy considerably making that numbers.

We never claim that CEaW is suppoed to be 100% accurate historically because we believe few ppl would want it that way, and there is no right or wrong in this question. A game has to have a focus and games are always a mix of playability and realism where having one too dominant will make the other one worse. To the extreme if certain things were exactly historical they would still mean that players know more than what Commanders in WW2 knew so you cannot create the same situation regardless. In a game you will know that USSR have a harsh winter and that you might get seriously hurt there, so you would be more cautious than in real WW2 not to repeat the same mistakes. Just an example, so 100% realism is not possible in either case and it is not our goal since this is a game. Our goal is to make it as realistic as possible without limiting the playability and competetiveness in playing it. [:)]

I also believe that the options we offer should satisfy it. We have handicap levels for both Axis and Allies, if you think Axis is too strong then why not set the Allied handicap higher. Furthermore, there are some good mods already where you can play with more historical proportions of units and OOB.

Never said I dont like the game that is what you said.  Question was will the game last 20 years answer is no. 
 
Obviously you have failed to read most of my posts since I have always said the game is fun but lacking in many major areas.  It has good points also and I have noted them many times.  Probably as many times as I have noted the bad areas.
 
If you dislike my posts suggest you dont read them.  But games do not improve by telling everyone they are great they are prefect I like it all.  They improve due to complaints and observation by players pointed out on these boards.  Designers read these and consider them to improve the game.
 
These designers specifically respond to the complaints and observations very well.  I have written to many of them and recieved replies from them.  We dont always agree but they at least know what I like and what I dont.  Not sure what you like or dont like.  Example was I really disliked not having playback.  They finally after asking asking and asking told me it was a irrevocable design decision that was not fixable.  I have not complained about that again.  Told them I would not.  Doesnt mean I like it but nothing they can do about it so no use in talking about it.  Now the question is how to fix it by other means.  So far I havent come up with an idea but when I do I will be posting that suggestion also.
 
I have almost every computer war game made.  Most I played once or twice threw them in the worthless pile and have not played them again.  Didnt bother to go to there boards; games had no potential for me. 
 
Some I played for a couple weeks went to boards got no responses and dropped them as designers where not listening. 
 
Then there are the few that are good but need work and the designers are listening.  HOI was one.  HOI2 another.  SC2 and this one.  I correspond on the boards for these and CWIE.  These games have great potential but all can use improvement.  HOI series I dont like the real time but otherwise I have no problems with it.  SC2 I hate the squares but otherwise find it excellant.  CWIE needs to implement air, navy and politic that are more controlable. 
 
 
So you really did not get the message.  If I dont like a game I dont spend anytime trying to make it as good as it can be I just toss it in the junk pile and buy a new one.

@Johan,

developing a game with an historical background and historical facts could not ignore to much of them to be playable for the masses. Otherwise the difficulty levels should named as "how we think it should be" and "more historical".

Our critic is not negative(!) - we say this words in hope for improvments which results an a better game [&o]

As targul said: If i don't the like the game, i would not spent so many time here - espacily with my problem to the english language [8|].

I am not saying that game balance is not important, quite the contrary that is what is the most important. We want game balance so that all unit types come into play and that you cannot exploit certain strategies.  We are not trying to make the game more historical setup so that Allies have this big advantage, we are well aware that Axis has a better chance to win in this game than in real WW2 so maybe they have 50%-50% here and in real they had 20%-80% and we intend to keep it near 50-50 and leave the rest for players to be set using the Advantage settings and mods.

@BigFish
Same answer, this is just a missunderstanding [:)]
We want feedback on bugs and gameplay of course and are doing everything we can to balance the game for the next and future patches. But we are not aiming for shifting the more playable and competetive focus to a more strict historical focus. A strict historical focus could mean that the Axis vs Allies fundamental differences are much larger than currently (unit ratios, unit density on map and economy). We chose a hybrid in this case with Allies having stronger economy instead of historically overwhelming economy, which of course means game is more 50-50 (in 1939 scenario that is) instead of a 20-80 situation in favour of Allies.

Economics is not the problem as I see it.  Balance should be based on the units abilities. Make the French really poor.  Make early English with good and poor units but give them enough money to build tech and units.  Russia same problem make them poor at start but quickly upgrade tech and units. 
 
These things can balance the game without making the actual game ahistorical.  It is difficult to get that balance but the Axis was victorious and deadly.  It took along time for the Allies and Soviets to get adequate forces to combat the Axis threat but they did and once they did they finally overwhelmed the Axis.  Since you have commanders add them to the mix at start these could make areas tougher and better. 
 
You have all the resources here to make this a historical accurate and balanced game it only requires you look at it from both angles each time you make a change.

One of the saving graces of CEAW, as with many other games before it, is that it can be "modded". If one wants a more "historical" experience, make the changes deemed necessary to obtain that result, and then seek like-minded players if PBEM is your thing.

Stauffenberg has modded the map ever so slightly (extra ports, resources, garrisons---but done in a very balanced way). He and I are involved in a PBEM, and part way through Stauffenberg suggested that the number of rail moves for Germany and Russia needed to be tweaked. Easy! So now we are both enjoying a game that reflects our vision of what a wargame should be.

Is it perfect? No. Am I still playing it, after two months or so? Yes!

I have many games, and lots of time on my hands, but this CEAW has kept me away from alternatives such as HOI2, Medieval Total War, GGWAW-AWD, to mention but a few.

So, I think that the answer to the question "What is absolutely necessary ... for a game to last for years?" is really reduced to one requirement---that it can be modded by the player, to be exactly the game that the player wants it to be. [:)]

Sorry but I have not and do not intend to Mod games.  I think it is great they have the ability but as you mentioned most games do.
 
If I wanted to write the program I would not buy the game. 
 
I have examined the instructions for modding and looked at the mod items. I would find it a daunting task. 
 
I say hip hip harah to those who mod and love there work but I just wanna play not program.

well me and my buddies buy this game because it is simple to get into and fun to play

There is a lot of suggestion to improve this game which is good but please dont turn it into another WiTP which until today I have not even complete a turn after few years of buying it

Is not that WiTP ( War in the Pacific ) a bad game infact is a very good if you are the type for it , you can see from the forum , there a lot players who still play the game until today , just that I cant go to the developer and tell them please make the game simpler , less historical so that I can get into it

There will be a group of wargamers who love complex , details and historical and there are a lot of games out there to satisfy them

So let CEAW be what it meant to be and let work together to focus on how to improve the game in terms of reporting bugs / game interface and not trying change it to another type of game

Finally , yes I wlll be still playing this for time to come

See hes a Hero also .. And makes good pointy .. as in units ..
Ire was ere ..
IDG