What makes this different

[mesquite5]

AS the owner of all the Strategic Command games sold thru Battlefront...Is there a compelling reason to buy this
game? Does it have a significant improvement over the previous games?

[Sugar]

Is there a compelling reason to buy this game?

There is indeed. At first the splitted actionpoints: you might move a unit, move another, attack with the first, then with the second, and still move on.

The size of the map is significantly bigger, there are more units and more detailed in total; and there`s hexagons instead of tiles.

This effects single player, and additionally the AI has been improved.

If you liked Breakthrough Storm over Europe, you`ll like this even more I guess. I do.

[mesquite5]

Ok Thanks...I guess I'll pick it up since it's on sale.

[Guderian1940]

This is a reason this game does not work well in the combat system. Being able to keep attacking till a unit is eliminated is not a good thing. This is what makes the game less than stellar. I would prefer there be an option to limit inf type units to lose all their AP's after an attack i.e. no longer be able to move. Armor types can still do as current. Air should also be reduced, allow attack but each subsequent one be significantly reduced. Eliminating units with air is not good. Rubble tend to help the defender. These changes would need to be tested and I am sure other adjustment may be needed.

This system worked well In a Napoleonic game where there was an option to not have Inf attack multiple times and let Cavalry do so and exploit. Infantry that have not attacked can move further. It was the preferred setup.

Supply and replacements is still an issue. An HQ siting in a desert Hex with no supply possibilities can still get replacements??? A unit at 0 supply should be at zero possibilities of combat and replacements. It should take precedent over other factors. Since surrender is not an option units have to be eliminated. Might take a month!!! Use a supply chain i.e. a path of road and or RR to a supply source otherwise unit is out of supply with serious consequences.

Turns: A turn should include both players with the same condition i.e. weather for both. This is a big unbalancing feature not being able to react in the same weather conditions. Is it not normal that the 2nd player cannot react with he same weather. After all the UGOIGO systems is an abstraction of simultaneous movement. The reason of initiative is not valid as initiative is based on a player not weather. The number of turns would increase allowing for more time to adjust.

These are not my ideas, they are implemented in a thousand games over the years. Why does this game have to use unconventional terminology and design systems against those that have worked for 50 years. A wheel is a wheel round not square. You can improve wheel, but it is still has to be round.

All this being said, many good improvements have been made but I fear the current design can only be tweaked so much. The above suggestions would turn this game into a 10 not on;y a 7 that is now at.

It is a very good game but has some quirks.

IMHO

[Hairog]

ORIGINAL: Guderian1940

This is a reason this game does not work well in the combat system. Being able to keep attacking till a unit is eliminated is not a good thing.

The units are not destroyed just incapacitated and are available for refit in a shorter amount of time and at a reduced cost. I was not a fan of earlier version because I did not understand this. I have problem with Panzer Corps due to this same perception.

This is what makes the game less than stellar. I would prefer there be an option to limit inf type units to lose all their AP's after an attack i.e. no longer be able to move. Armor types can still do as current. Air should also be reduced, allow attack but each subsequent one be significantly reduced. Eliminating units with air is not good.

Again not destroyed.

Since surrender is not an option units have to be eliminated.

I've had them surrender in my mod. I don't think I've changed anything that I know of. The French garrison in Berlin always surrenders.

Turns: A turn should include both players with the same condition i.e. weather for both. This is a big unbalancing feature not being able to react in the same weather conditions. Is it not normal that the 2nd player cannot react with he same weather. After all the UGOIGO systems is an abstraction of simultaneous movement. The reason of initiative is not valid as initiative is based on a player not weather. The number of turns would increase allowing for more time to adjust.

Hubert has made it possible to modify this. In WWIII 1946 mod both players have the same weather etc. I have the turns simultaneous with a length of 7 days. The standard game is alternate and seasonal.

[sPzAbt653]

Just for the other side of the coin, I don't agree with any of the opinions in post #4.

[rjh1971]

ORIGINAL: sPzAbt653

Just for the other side of the coin, I don't agree with any of the opinions in post #4.

I do agree with the first half of his last sentence [;)] [:D]

It is a very good game but has some quirks

But everyone has the right to see it in a different way and everything is subject to improvement. [8D]

[KorutZelva]

''The Oregon Trail doesn't have a Panzer option. 0 Stars.''

[Guderian1940]

So simultaneous means same turn/weather. Again a term that is not what it normally stands for. It makes for confusing terms, Multiplayer, PBEM are not used in the normal fashion and I purchased the game thinking that PBEM was PBEM not server based and Multiplayer meant more than 2 player games. Is this a marketing ploy, designers not understanding wargame terminology, or just trying to be different.

[sPzAbt653]

The responsibility is on us, it is our money and our decision. Marketing is not a ploy, it is big business the American Way [and for the rest of the world, too]. I can sympathize with you, I purchased Commander: Europe at War thinking that it would have an editor and solo play. That was my first game purchase in many years and one that I regret, but I don't blame CEaW. It was my fault for not doing proper research ahead of time as I would with any non-gaming purchase.
Either apply yourself here to what is a very good game, or move on to something else. No amount of wrongly chastising Matrix or the game developers will get you any satisfaction.
Happy Gaming [:)]

[Guderian1940]

We have a responsibility to check things out but Companies also have a responsibility. Don't you think. I am not saying the that it is being done to mislead buyers. I think they are just trying to be different.

All I am saying it is annoying that terms are not properly defined as expected. If I see a game advertised as simultaneous play I would not expect a UGOIGO turn based game. I was wondering why they do that.

There is a difference between thinking there is a feature that is not there and using terminology differently then expected.

I am not the only one to point this out. It took me awhile just to figure out that turns were not done at the same time. I saw the turns numbers in the email and it did not make sense. Anybody experienced with wargames would wonder as well. It should be pointed out so that others better understand the game design.






















'

All I am pointing out is that several terms used are not defined correctly.

[sPzAbt653]

a game advertised as simultaneous play

I looked at the product page and don't see this, but I know you know what you are talking about, I just think that you are sticking with it too long for no benefit. I mean, I played this for a couple days [solo] before I noticed the turn difference, first I thought it was odd, then I realized that is the way the game is and I actually like it. There aren't turns in real life, so it seems a little nice to have possibly different weather for both sides. We all cried at first when the Axis got three turns of good weather while the Allies got three of poor weather. I think most of us adapt and play on.
Isn't this comparable to the first time you played chess and were shocked at the movement rules ? We either learn to love chess, or go on to backgammon or something else.