To Buy Or Not To Buy? That Is The Question...

[New York Jets]

I've seen some mixed reviews by the players who have posted here. I LOVED Advanced Third Reich and like WWII Grand Strategy.

I like a lot of detail but undertand this game is only moderately detailed. If the game play and flavor are good I can overlook that. Hell, I actually enjoy Guns of August.

Is this game worth my money and time?

[Texican]

Game mechanics are pretty simple and clean.
Research and Development is pretty simple and clean.
Map is basic and bland.
Graphics are 1990's 2-D flavor.

AI is better than retarded. Basically, Germans will trash Poland, trash France and the Low Countries, maybe trash Denmark, maybe Yugoslavia, then move into Russia.

Very predictable gameplay, and the only Axis units you will see in Africa will be Italian, so don't expect a dynamic and exciting Mediterranean Front.

Bottom Line: AI doesn't appear to have advanced at all in these types of games (European-scale WW2). I played this a few times, was amused, never challenged, and finally bored.

Ask yourself if two weeks of nightly entertainment is worth $40 to $50. Wasn't for me, and in fact, Matrix has been missing the mark for me for quite some time. I'm about to look elsewhere.

[SMK-at-work]

IMO this game is not comparable to GoA at all - it's a fairly light approach to WW2 that emphasises "playability" and "simplicity" over "simulation".

As a result it is simple and playable, but not a very good simulation!![8D]

So it depends what you're after - if you want a game that has tanks and U-boats and vaguely resembles WW2 then this is fine.  If you want a good simulation that gives you a believable "what if" game of WW2 then you won't like it - indeed IMO there is no such game available at the moment.

IPersonally I would like a better simulation....but this is OK vs human opponents.

[New York Jets]

Thanks. I'll wait a bit.

Maybe World in Flames will be out before I die.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
If you want a good simulation that gives you a believable "what if" game of WW2 then you won't like it - indeed IMO there is no such game available at the moment.

Oh, I have to disagree with that - YMMV of course, but for those who want a more detailed simulation of WWII there are certainly quite a few options. CEAW has a very high fun factor and is at least as accurate as many other WWII grand strategy titles that have come out over the years, but there are certainly other options that focus more on historical play and detail.

IMHO CEAW is a very fun game of WWII, but if you want something more serious, it couldn't be called "hard-core".

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Texican
Bottom Line: AI doesn't appear to have advanced at all in these types of games (European-scale WW2). I played this a few times, was amused, never challenged, and finally bored.

What other grand strategy WW2 titles have you played?

[firepowerjohan]

Complicated and Complex is not the same thing, as can be proven by Chess which is a game easy with simple rules yet extremely complex.

1) Fun and rewarding
2) Realistic
3) Easy going (hence not tedious or complicated system)

These 3 categories do not often go hand in hand, so all games are a compromise of reality.

Our goal is to score high in all 3 categories without being too extreme in any direction, so we are prepared that some hard core players might not like the game as much as if we did it differently. But to the initial question, this game is easy going so should have a wider appeal than most wargames out there at leist that is our goal [8D]

[SMK-at-work]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
If you want a good simulation that gives you a believable "what if" game of WW2 then you won't like it - indeed IMO there is no such game available at the moment.

Oh, I have to disagree with that - YMMV of course, but for those who want a more detailed simulation of WWII there are certainly quite a few options.

I didn't mention detail - my criteria for a good game is how believable it's version of history is - IMO of course.

Detail and minutiae are not a requirement for believability - and neither is simplicity - both can give believable results if done well. Given equal believability I'd probably tend towards preferring simpler.

CEAW .......... is at least as accurate as many other WWII grand strategy titles that have come out over the years,

Yep - but it's not a very high bar IMO

IMHO CEAW is a very fun game of WWII, but if you want something more serious, it couldn't be called "hard-core".

Yep....just like I said

[Erik Rutins]

SMK,

Which other WWII grand strategy titles have you played in the last few years?

Regards,

- Erik

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work
... As a result it is simple and playable, but not a very good simulation!![8D]

So it depends what you're after - if you want a game that has tanks and U-boats and vaguely resembles WW2 then this is fine.  If you want a good simulation that gives you a believable "what if" game of WW2 then you won't like it - indeed IMO there is no such game available at the moment.

IPersonally I would like a better simulation....but this is OK vs human opponents.

Odd coincidence that we are basically having the same issue w/CaW and C(E)aW; SSG stressed that CaW is a recreation, not a simulation, of WW II carrier action, i.e., some players want the IJ order of Battle @ Midway accurate to the last Zero.

Slitherine already said they wanted to create a simple, enjoyable WW II in Europe engine, but grognards like us will always grumble it's never realistic enough.

No win situation.

[Erik Rutins]

The hobby could honestly use a few more games like CEAW and CAW. Games with less severe learning curves and modern interfaces are great tools to appeal to a wider audience and get more folks into wargaming. Sure, some folks jump right in with WITP, but most would run screaming from it if it were their first wargame.

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

...Sure, some folks jump right in with WITP, but most would run screaming from it if it were their first wargame.

[:D]

I ran screaming from it and it's gotta be my 451st wargame......[X(][:'(]

[O.O. Howard]

Greetings Chris Trog,[/align] [/align]Even though I gave the game a pretty tough review... If I had the choice again to buy it or not...  It really was so much fun the first several times I played it... And the multiplayer is so great... Yeah, i WOULD buy it again.[/align] [/align]and now for a little rant....[/align] [/align]I was playing it solo last night for the first time in a few weeks, and i was having fun, so i am not gonna complain. Maybe i am less grognard than most. [:)]  But you know, 1/2 the time 'playing' those complicated boardgames in the past was looking up rules and tables, bookkeeping, arguing about rules, setting up, and taking down the game. I suppose that process sets up anticipation, but lets be honest... we dont go back to that stuff anymore(at least i dont) Maybe trying to figure out complicated rules is part of 'strategy'. Wrestling with obscure concepts... yeah when i was young I sorta liked it. I dont have the time or inclination for that now. I want to make decisions and see if my strategy works, and thats what CeaW gives you right away.  [/align] [/align]Two weeks of great fun with CeaW was nothing else but fun decisions every minute. These guys set up a nice game for us. It isnt going to satisfy my every wargame desire, because yeah its too simple to do all that. But you will have fun for hours with no time wasted trying to figure out where the table is for bombing a harbor. [/align] [/align]And someone else was speaking as though this game gives them reason to not buy matrix games. Heck, because of this game I am looking over all the matrix games. I might buy Guns of August and that civil war game right next to it. And then advanced tactics coming out soon. It seems like all the game designers are right there for you to talk to. Never had that with avalon hill.[/align] [/align]Lets be honest about the old boardgames(well, usually they werent even on boards, just paper) we bought a great game... learned how to play... and never played but once or twice all the way through with someone. Can I get an amen? [/align] [/align]Add up all the time you actually PLAYED the game. it doesnt add up to 2 weeks of fun.[/align] [/align]Buy the game.[/align] [/align] [/align]

[O.O. Howard]

buy the game... of course I mean buy Commander, europe at war

[SeaMonkey]

I'm sure CEaW is good for an entry level strategic scope game, but it is unrefined at the moment.  Good potential if the developers hang in there for awhile, but that remains to be seen.
 
If you want the epitome of this genre that has been massaged since its introduction in the summer of 2002, then look in on Strategic Command.  It is imminently available in its third version, with a multitude of patches/enhancements as its legacy, with a very dedicated developer, Hubert Cater.
 
Bill Macon(pzgndr) has used its TOAW like editor to produce a version of ATR, A3R, oh heck, Advanced Third Reich, and I was lucky enough to be involved as a tester.
 
You won't be disappointed.

[decaro]

My 1st PC game was EU; I don't remember an in-game tutorial and the manual was worthless, but in general, deep games w/steep earning curves are usu. worth the time it takes to learn them.

Re neophytes: I think they buy their games in stores, then migrate to the forums. The problem is that store PC gameware selections are dwarfed by new video game releases, i.e., Halo et al.

[Texican]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Texican
Bottom Line: AI doesn't appear to have advanced at all in these types of games (European-scale WW2). I played this a few times, was amused, never challenged, and finally bored.

What other grand strategy WW2 titles have you played?

Since the early 1970's, the Avalon Hil games (Third Reich and such), SPI games.

Since the computer age, Strategic Command, Clash of Steel, a couple of carrier games, Age of Empires, Rome: Total War, Forge of Freedom, War in the Pacific, Uncommon Valor. Many other games, likely too numerous to list. Best game I ever played was Panzer General (first one, not the sequels).

Bottom line: I expect a game to either give me one heck of a simulation or at least an engaging challenge. However, the grander the scope of the game, the lesser the challenge is, it seems.

I'm not Rommel-in-an-armchair, but I expect a good fight when I sit down to play a game, and really find it disappointing when the computer A.I. is wimped out and I have to crank up all the artificial settings just to get some kind of respectable opposition going.

I know you guys try, but I did expect more from this recent game, at least in terms of A.I.

Again, A.I. (challenge) is most important to me, regardless of the scale of detail involved.

Interface: Should be simple.
Scale and detail: Can be very simple; need not account for every supply truck in an army, all for the pursuit of realism.
A.I. opponent: Should be ruthless.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Texican
Interface: Should be simple.
Scale and detail: Can be very simple; need not account for every supply truck in an army, all for the pursuit of realism.
A.I. opponent: Should be ruthless.

Ok, well not every game is going to appeal to every gamer. I think there are a lot of folks for whom CEAW is just right, but I certainly know that some wargamers will want more than it can offer.

If CEAW isn't your cup of tea, I would recommend you try Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided. It matches all of the above criteria, in my experience.

I also agree with the guy who recommended Strategic Command 2, but while that game has a very nice editor, IMHO the AI in GGWAW:AWD is better.

Regards,

- Erik

[Texican]

Not sure of the AI on that one. Simplistic map, extensive rules, didn't try it long enough to find out.

I do wish (and am probably not alone) that you guys would buy the rights to SSI's Panzer General and remake that game. Allow for a little branching of campaigns, and allow for scenario loss without the entire campaign ending.

Would be AWESOME!

[SeaMonkey]

Grant you GGWaW is a good simulation, an adequate AI, but you have not been exposed to the new SC WaW.

GGWaW lacks the operational features of maneuver and there is no transgression into the tactical world of battle.

SC has both. SC transcends all the levels of combat, albeit abstracted in some cases, but a very good simulation of all 3 levels. That is why I reiterate it represents the epitome of the GS scale currently.

Tell me about a game with its majesty that a turn can be done in minutes? Then again allowing the player to dwell upon the different facets of strategy, wargaming the wargame, modeling the "what ifs", and presenting the player with a multitude of results on reloading.

I won't mention an editor that puts all other wargames to shame, excepting perhaps TOAW.

It doesn't exist. Sorry....yes it does.... SC WaW!