My Reiew

[Moltke71]

Sorry, guys.

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2596/co ... eon-at-war

[firepowerjohan]

Hi Jim!
Thanks for reviewing the game. I understand you did not like the AI and the simplicity issues are described throughout the review but some of them are not correct.

The hex scale is at most 50km per hex not 100km. As example, London to Moscow (~2510km on Real Map) is 59 hexes distance in game which is ~43km per hex. Atlantic is shortened, but for Europe the hex scale is at most 50km.

The time scale is 20 days per turn not 1 months.

Another thing is that the game has war weariness via Manpower (penalties) and horses (shortages) [:)]

All these factors are the same as Commander Europe at War released one year ago, in fact most of the rules are either same as CEAW or expanded or tweaked for Napoleonic era.

[Moltke71]

Sorry about the small errors but the manual didn't speak to scale and I think I asked about them here earlier.  The war weariness penalities are so slight that they never came into play.

[spadman]

I am fairly new to this forum and never say anything but I wanted to give my thoughts on this game.
Jim, I read your review and really like the way you review games over on the wargamer but I thought you missed something. I realize that you commented on the fact that this game maybe was for the beginning wargamer but there are many people out there who are not looking for every detail. For instance, I bought a boardgame recently called Manoeuvre and it was so much fun in all its abstract ways that it was a big reason for me buying this game. I have never studied anything about Napoleon (more of a WW2 buff) but these games are adding to my enthusiasm and am already out on Amazon looking for books on the period.
Once I know more I may realize the abstract ways of this game but it still does not take away from the fun of the game.
Anyway just my 2cents.

BTW, johan is there a place where I can find out what the science means and how it carries into the battlefield. I do wish that was clarified in the rulebook.

Mike

[firepowerjohan]

Spadman, in research screen you can click one of the buttons "Infantry, Cavalry, ..." and it will jump to detailed research screen. There u can see what every tech does, what units it affect and what value goes up.

Weather Tolerance is the only value that might need explanation, it basically mean if that one is +50 then it means you suffer 50% less weather penalty in combat. So if a severe snow give you 60% penalty normally, having a +50 on weather tolerance would instead give you 30% penalty.

This weather tolerance tech is set so that Russia has higher than France simulating the disadvantage they will have during the winter months. Much better to have it viewable and by tech in this case than having hidden special rules for certain countries.

http://www.slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8288

[IainMcNeil]

I think Jim misses the point of the Commander Series. He didn't like CEAW either as is clearly shown in his article comparing it to strategic command. The wargamer gave CEAW a glowing review. Jim knew he was going to dislaike CNAW before he revewied it as he didn't like teh system it was based on so it's a bit of a bizarre choice of reviewer for me. The commander games are soft wargames for a wider market. The grognards constantly complain about the lack of new blood in the hobby and when something that might appeal to them comes along they pick it apart because it doesn't accurately simulate the war
 
The AI did have a few glitches which have been vastly improved and CNAW is now a very enjoyable game. It's a shame Jim can't take his grogards hat off and try and see things from the wider perspective and appreciate a good fun game!

[Moltke71]

No, Ian, I like simple games - observe my support for Advanced Tactics and your other games -that make some historical sense other than knowing Napoleon was French emperor and fought wars.

I can send you another crate of sour grapes if you want.[>:]

[IainMcNeil]

No need, I think you're still missing the point - there is a difference between approachable and simple  
 
AT, no matter how good is never going to appeal to a wider audience because it is not approachable because of its presentation and UI system. These are the things that lighter gamers want to be done right. Just look at games like Advance Tactics. That's why we're doing so well - because we understand what the non hardcore wargamers want.
 
You have to admit you didnt like the original Commander - you said as much in your comparison of it with SC.
 
Anyway, you think you're right, I think you're wrong, so there is nowhere to really go from here, but thanks for dropping by!

[Moltke71]

My memory's fading: where did I compare Commander to SC?

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck
My memory's fading: where did I compare Commander to SC?

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2499/Bi ... ope-at-War

That said, I just love Commander : Europe at War and yet I agree totally with your review of the Nappy version. You just can't cram a Napoleonic strategic level wargame into an engine designed for WWII without having way too many abstractions to remain believable and somewhat historical.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[Erik Rutins]

I think CNAW handles it about as well as you could handle it while keeping the ease of gameplay that CEAW had. The abstraction of scale works pretty well I think to create a "grand tactical" feel on the strategic level, which is workable due to the relatively low unit density that gives more room for maneuver. You definitely have to take your "grognard" cap off to accept these abstractions though. I do think the improvements in the AI after release have been quite substantial too, you may want to take a second look with the latest beta update if you haven't yet.

For grognards, there is always Crown of Glory and Empires in Arms, but CNAW does serve as a much better introductory wargame as CEAW also did.

Regards,

- Erik

[Moltke71]

Thanks, Eddy.

I know now why I couldn't remember saying I disliked CEW: I never said it! A careful reading of the piece will reveal:

""If gamers must use one concept to decide between the two products, this strategic difference should be the deciding factor. Otherwise, both games are worth getting to experience the subtle nuances."

Sloppy readers are worse than sloppy writers. The piece was a point-by-point comparison.

[Adam Parker]

This is by far one of Jim's best reviews I've read. Helpful (though too late for me). Yet, finally someone willing to spread the bad news when it's due.

Even without mention of the AI, Jim hit the main game killer on the head for me:

Artillery can hit targets up to three hexes away. A range of 300 kilometers isn’t bad for 19th Century smooth bore muzzle-loaders, doubtless another abstraction...

Even if it's 150km, that's just too much abstraction for me.

There is beauty in having 1 unit per hex to create this need. However, as I've posted elsewhere I think the developers followed the wrong paradigm with this one.

Rather than having undefinable individual units of inf, cav, arty etc., units should have been pure combined corps - national idiosynchracies should have been their main differentiating factor and individual leaders their main game related determinant of maneuver, tactical flexibility and combat.

[Sgt.Fury25]

Hi Guys,Im no grognard but i am an experienced wargamer,and I found both fun to play.Moreso after most of the wrinkles were ironed out.Sometimes games like these are an relaxation break from the hardcore games like witp,eip,etc.Jim your review was good if you tested a pre patched version,but after the updates its much better now.[:D]

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: Adam Parker
Rather than having undefinable individual units of inf, cav, arty etc., units should have been pure combined corps - national idiosynchracies should have been their main differentiating factor and individual leaders their main game related determinant of maneuver, tactical flexibility and combat.

The big problem isn't the Cav & Arty supporting an attack from a couple of hexes distance, the problem is that Napoleonic warfare was basically maneuver warfare with - if you get it right - multiple corps converging simultaneously on the hapless enemy, with front/facing direction a major battle decider.

This is a game which cries out for unit stacking in the same hex. WWII corps/army level units had a men & material footprint and supply requirements which more or less made it believable that you could only put 1 unit in 1 hex, for a Nappy game it’s simply wrong, which leads to “fixes” like having cav and arty support an attack from hundreds of miles away.

That and multi-select units to attack the same defending hex, with bonusses for flank/rear attacks.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[firepowerjohan]

As I understand it, some ppl cannot play a game at this scale pre 20th century without stacking but some can. Some ppl like Ronson, Spadman (me, Iain, Erik but we are biased) seemingly do not care much about stacking being abstracted but why are we to tell these players even if they being a slight minority that they should not buy a game like this?

I am sure that not only beginners like simple games from time to time. This is the same as in some game ppl are shouting out "noob" whenever players are not dedicated fans or hardcore players I get the same feel from some of these discussions [:-]

By the way, we had the same discussion for CEAW some ppl just could not play without stacking but from a reviewers stand point why take a stand in one of these when it is obvious that both sides have their fans even if it is Napoleonic, WW2 or Rome. In CEAW we had air units that could fire 10-20 hexes range but did the bombs actually travel 10-20 hexes or did the plane first move there...hmmm [;)]

The article on SC2WAW vs CEAW I read months ago, without going into the details I could tell he did not play CEAW very much and hence I also believe like Iain that he did not like the Commander engine already. If someone likes a game they play it more than once. The CNAW reviews just confirmed it. In fact I think this whole topic says a few things about some of the controversy about simple games.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck
Sloppy readers are worse than sloppy writers. The piece was a point-by-point comparison.

Jim,

I just want to be clear that I appreciate the coverage and the time you took to review CNAW and I respect your opinion, even if I disagree in some respects.

Regards,

- Erik

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: Bismarck

Thanks, Eddy.

I know now why I couldn't remember saying I disliked CEW: I never said it! A careful reading of the piece will reveal:

""If gamers must use one concept to decide between the two products, this strategic difference should be the deciding factor. Otherwise, both games are worth getting to experience the subtle nuances."

Sloppy readers are worse than sloppy writers. The piece was a point-by-point comparison.

A strong indicator if liking a product is how much you play it. I can tell just from the CNAW review and some of the wrong numbers given if someone has been playing a game a lot and same as with the SC2WAW vs CEAW article. Just as you draw a conclusion about a game we drew the conclusion you did not like the Commander series all in all but we did not quote you on it.

I think still the issue is, why telling ppl that are noobs or casual players that they are wrong that they should not want accessible games but instead that they should become veterans so they can play "real games"?

From what i see not all ppl are begginers even, like Ronson, but instead experienced players that choose to have something faster and accessible from time to time. They even say in this topic they do not care much for the abstraction.

[sterckxe]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan
By the way, we had the same discussion for CEAW some ppl just could not play without stacking but from a reviewers stand point why take a stand in one of these when it is obvious that both sides have their fans even if it is Napoleonic, WW2 or Rome.

Because, quite simply, the no-stacking in CEAW wasn't a bad design decision from an abstraction pov, making it a most delightfull simple, yet subtle wargame - my pick for Wargame of the Year 2007 BTW - but it *is* a bad design decision ... well, scratch that : it is a case of trying to cram an era into an engine not suited for it, making it fall below my personal "like/don't like" thresshold.

To put it in simpler terms : CEAW was a game that was liked by both "noobs" and "grogs", but it's hard to imagine anyone but a "noob" getting much enjoyment out of the Nappy version - as Mr. Cobb correctly pointed out. This doesn't make it a bad game, just one which should be marketed to the correct audience to avoid disappointment and disgruntled customers avoiding your future products like the plague.

Viewed as such, Mr. Cobb's review is doing you a favour in the long run by correctly pointing out who this game is for, and who should look elsewhere.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

[firepowerjohan]

I would not say that CEAW was ideal for grognarss, far from. Liked by some grognards though.. In fact there was a strong sceptisicm towards that game early on. Some trolls that showed up even but they tend to melt in the sun though after a while. [:D].

But yes I get your points. I would say CNAW is ideal for average, experienced and noob but not for the hardcore or grognards. Though, posts on forums have a heavily bias towards grognards, they are more active that cannot be news. Spadman has 24 posts, Ronson 42 posts while grognards generally have thousands so guess what opinion will be most frequent the noob or the grognards. [;)]

Ronson : "Hi Guys,Im no grognard but i am an experienced wargamer,and I found both fun to play."