How similar is this to Strategic Command?

[TPM]

When I first heard about this game, I was pretty excited about it...but then I saw the screen shots. It looks to me like another version of "Strategic Command" (which, in my mind, was an updated "Clash of Steel"). I have not played the game, but from what I've read, I can't see where there's that much difference. If it's in another thread, I'll find it (or you can point me to it!), but I would love to hear how this game differs from "Strategic Command".

I know one thing off the bat that bugs me, and really is a deal breaker--no stacking! For a game of this scale, which uses divison-sized units, why no stacking? I saw a screen shot from this forum where a guy had bunched up units for an invasions and they were about 5 or 6 hex rows deep! I'm not talking about 50 units in a hex, but at least 2 or maybe 3?

Love to hear any comments, thanks.

[winky51]

Its a corp/division level game of course there isnt any stacking. 
 
Would you rather have 3 stacks of divs or a simple corp unit to rep them?

[GJK]

Honestly? 3 division sized units. Those stacked together attack a hex and clear it of defenders. Two divisions advance while one remains behind as a rear-guard support division, for example.

[PDiFolco]

If the units are really div-sized, how can the map just hold what was the '45 USSR armies, with several HUNDREDS divisions ?

[geozero]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

If the units are really div-sized, how can the map just hold what was the '45 USSR armies, with several HUNDREDS divisions ?

Most modern PC's could handle this.

Or...The other route would be to allow Corps size units to break down into 3 Divs, and have Divs of same "type" recombine to Corps level... then (as in GJK's example) you make an attack you can get the option to break down and advance with 2 Divs while leaving one behind (which is a very sound strategic and tactical way of handling things on a battlefield...otherwise its an RTS click fest).

But back to the original OT... SC1 and SC2 games are "tile based" versus hexes. In the SC 2 the maximum (capable) map size is 256x128, but even their European WW2 campaign is far smaller than that. Not sure on R2V's actual hex size dimensions (don't have the game...yet [;)]) but I think it's going to be much much larger.

Looks to be a very promising game indeed.

[Lucky1]

I, for one, don't mind the current lack of stacking. Stacking is one reason I really struggled with Frank Hunter's WWI game.... It will be a challenge to please everyone, I think.....

[geozero]

In Global War by SPI, (for those too young to know it was a board game), same unit "types" combined or broke down as needed.  There was stacking allowed which sometimes could make a mess of the board if you weren't too careful. 
 
With a PC, stacking or combining units should be easy.  If you don't want a "mess" with stacks you can easily limit it.  I think what is also being asked/discussed is ability to break down those "corps" units. 

[TPM]

"Of course there isn't any stacking"??

I can think of several computer wargames that are at divisional/corps level that allow stacking...Operational Art of War comes to mind immediately.

I don't think it's unreasonable to have stacking for a game at div/corps level...what matters more "of course", is the hex size, and from looking at screenshots of this game, it seems to be at a scale that can handle stacking, and in my opinion, benefits from stacking. Think of the blitzkrieg through the Ardennes forest in 1940 and 1945...large amounts of men and armour crammed into a small space.

Again, I'm not talking about unlimited stacking, etc., etc. I'm thinking at least two units, max three.

ORIGINAL: winky51

Its a corp/division level game of course there isnt any stacking. 

Would you rather have 3 stacks of divs or a simple corp unit to rep them?

[doomtrader]

Eurpean scenarios map size is 264x179 hexes.
IIRC limit is way over 1000x1000 hexes.

[Plainian]

Yes I'd vote for stacking as well. The only reason I can see not to have stacking is that it complicates the user interface. At the moment the user interface is a joy to use and very very simple. One simple left click to get most land units to move and attack.
 
I can't see stacking being added and I think it has already been ruled out in another thread?
 
An alternative to in game stacking would be to add two new functions, Merge and Split. So a Division which is plotted to end its move in same hex as a friendly Div is merged into one Corps size unit, and a Corp sized unit could split into 2 units and one could be moved away individually. So there still would be no stacking but you'd have a bit more flexibility in the game. If the game had been designed and coded like this from the start then this probably would have helped.
 
However the interface would not be so straight forward and the AI would have a big problem coping with this. 

[doomtrader]

However the interface would not be so straight forward and the AI would have a big problem coping with this.

Indeed, it might be another tool of destruction in the hands of mighty player against AI.

[GJK]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

If the units are really div-sized, how can the map just hold what was the '45 USSR armies, with several HUNDREDS divisions ?

CWiEII is div-sized. Very large map, lots of units, but still very manageable.

[winky51]

The only other thing I could see it an "army" XXXXX stack for Russians conveting corps into that.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: GJK

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

If the units are really div-sized, how can the map just hold what was the '45 USSR armies, with several HUNDREDS divisions ?

CWiEII is div-sized. Very large map, lots of units, but still very manageable.

If you don't mind me asking, what game is "CWiEII"? Thanks.

[gwgardner]

Bump!  No one ever fully addressed the original question in this post - concerning similarity to SC2.  If this game is quite similar to SC2 I won't get it.  I'm looking for something that takes me back to the good old days of boardgames like War in Europe, War in the East.

[doomtrader]

Maybe you will find your answers here:
tm.asp?m=1872558
tm.asp?m=1880637

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

Bump!  No one ever fully addressed the original question in this post - concerning similarity to SC2.  If this game is quite similar to SC2 I won't get it.  I'm looking for something that takes me back to the good old days of boardgames like War in Europe, War in the East.

It has almot nothing in common!

-

[BriteLite]

ORIGINAL: TPM

ORIGINAL: GJK

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

If the units are really div-sized, how can the map just hold what was the '45 USSR armies, with several HUNDREDS divisions ?

CWiEII is div-sized. Very large map, lots of units, but still very manageable.

If you don't mind me asking, what game is "CWiEII"? Thanks.

I believe he is referring to Computer War in Europe 2 by Decision Games. Regarding the stacking comparison CWiE2 does not have AI.
I don't know if this has a direct relationship to unit stacking. It seems to me that stacking with AI as opposed to without AI requires different game mechanics. I am not a programmer, just guessing really.

I don't own the game but am considering purchasing. I will probably wait until the first patches are complete. Stacking is something I would like to see so long as overall development is not seriously hindered.

[doomtrader]

Stacking is something what rather won't be seen in this game.
It is because design and engine.