WiFers opinions on CoG

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

WiFers opinions on CoG

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> WiFers opinions on CoG

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

WiFers opinions on CoG - 7/20/2005 6:22:17 AM

Cheesehead

Posts: 418
Joined: 2/9/2004
From: Appleton, Wisconsin
Status: offline

Any WiFers out there play Crown of Glory? It looks interesting but it's a different genre than what I'm usually interested in (WWII). Does it compare favorably to WiF? I'm looking for something to kill time until MWiF comes out. Thanks for any feedback in advance.

John

_____________________________

You can't fight in here...this is the war room!

Post #: 1

RE: WiFers opinions on CoG - 7/20/2005 7:03:59 AM

jchastain

Posts: 2164
Joined: 8/8/2003
From: Marietta, GA
Status: offline

I tend to gravitate towards WWII titles but I am certainly on record as a fan of CoG. I've played dozens of games starting before IBM made PCs and IMO it is a creative little game that is very engrossing. Your scope of concern is clearly much smaller than global WWII and while the game has many elements to it, the strategies required to win are much less complex once you really learn and master the game. But the game has enough facets that learning to play and then master it is a lot of fun. And each playable nation has a very different feel, which is somewhat refreshing. Some folks have complained about the manual (which really is required reading before you play) and there are a few bugs that seem to affect a select few players much more than most. But overall, I would recommend it and an interesting diversion.

(in reply to Cheesehead)

Post #: 2

RE: WiFers opinions on CoG - 8/12/2005 12:11:57 AM

mdesarno

Posts: 14
Joined: 8/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jchastain

I tend to gravitate towards WWII titles but I am certainly on record as a fan of CoG. I've played dozens of games starting before IBM made PCs and IMO it is a creative little game that is very engrossing. Your scope of concern is clearly much smaller than global WWII and while the game has many elements to it, the strategies required to win are much less complex once you really learn and master the game. But the game has enough facets that learning to play and then master it is a lot of fun. And each playable nation has a very different feel, which is somewhat refreshing. Some folks have complained about the manual (which really is required reading before you play) and there are a few bugs that seem to affect a select few players much more than most. But overall, I would recommend it and an interesting diversion.

+1 on what jchastain says. Playing CoG is a lot like playing Empires in Arms, if you've ever played that. [Australian Design Group originally published that, too]. There is a 1.1 patch out for it to clear up some crash bugs, so it is better for a lot of players. Personally I have had no crashes at all with the game, it has been very good. There are a number of annoying game play bugs but the game is still great even with them. Also, the developers are really good about listening to the player feedback in the forums and appear to be working feverishly on new patches. Check out the CoG forum at this site and you will soon be able to see what the issues in question are with the game.

The game is fun and addictive even with the minor flaws. If you get the game, check out the CoG forum post near the top by Raliegh for his tips on getting a game started [various settings for sliders and stuff]. I found this to be extremely helpful, and it allowed me to play a full game without having to refer to the electronic manual much at all. If you like this game, you will almost certainly like Empires in Arms too, which another team is going to publish through Matrix.

(in reply to jchastain)

Post #: 3