WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold



Message

IrishGuards -> WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (6/14/2007 5:02:47 PM)

What is absolutely necessary ... for a game to last for years .. [:(]

A game that is going to last and still be challenging and essentially adaptable to options which create numerous situations .. pre .. during and post historical.

1936 - 1939 Axis and Allied Minors, resources, pacts for examples.
1939 - 1945 War .. OOB .. DoW's .. Tech .. National Strength's .. Force Pools
1945 - ???? Victory Conditions ..

What conditions need to be addressed so a well develpoed game will last and still have great playability in 20 years .. and then just upgrade it ...[X(]



Syagrius -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (6/14/2007 5:21:39 PM)

For me CEaW will fit the bill: the feel and gameplay of Panzer General on a strategic scale, with production, research etc...I have been waiting a loooong time for such a game.  HoI and GGWW are good games, but this one, watch out[:'(]!



Fred98 -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (6/15/2007 1:38:57 AM)

The game begins on 1st September 1939.

-




IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (7/2/2007 5:51:07 AM)

I posted this the day after I played the game for the first time ... [:)]
IDG



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (7/5/2007 4:03:23 AM)

IRE



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (7/18/2007 6:32:42 AM)

Where is the Luftwaffe [&:]
IDG



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 3:04:01 AM)

Bumpie bump ...
IDG



SMK-at-work -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 4:02:20 AM)

Let's see......one that has the fundamentals correct IMO.

for example airforces were usualy not organised as strategic games do it now - into nice tidy groups of fighters and bombers - 8th airforce had 8th bomber command and 8th fighter command - those fighters were used solely to escort the bombers (at least for as long as there were LW fighters around in significant numbers!!), while 9th AF similarly had bomber and fighter commands, but the fighters there were grouped into TACTICAL fighter commands - ie they were tasked with tactical ops as well as escorting their own bombers when required.

Certainly fighter command of the RAF was organised differently, but German Luftflottes weer somewhat similar, as was the Desert Airforce.

Neither of het strategic WW2 games I play at the moment allow such an organisation.

the fundamentals of hte naval war need addressing too - I shall probably go to my grave maintaining that treating ships as if they were land units that can move on water is wrong.  Most naval units sortied from a given base and returned to that base fairly shortly thereafter - eg U-boats would spend a few weeks in the Atlantic before returning to Brest or wherever.  So they should be based in Brest IMO - you'd then tell them where to operate ("home waters", Atlantic, US Coast, Sth Atlantic, Indian ocean, wherever...) and then a portion of them would actually attack shipping there - the further away it was the smaller the portion attacking would be (the rest are in transit there and back)

Escorts and sub-hunting groups would operate in a simlar manner - eg escorts from the UK would be given an area they would escort convoys in - and they'd attack any subs that attack convoys in that area.  Sub-hunter groups would attack any sub they find in the area ......but have a lower chance of finding any sub in particular (assuming it's easier to find subs around convoys!)

Stacking is a must!![8|]

Representing the home front is a must too - there weer over 1 million people emplyed in the strategic defence of the Reich in 1944....in CEAW you don't see any of them - in the competing product you can at least add AA defences to cities that cost resources.

I'm personally not a fan of 1-10 point land units - booooooooring PG cloning!![:(]  How about using divisions or brigades for strength measures or somethign like that, and allowing however many in a unit you want - you can put in tank ones or infanry ones, with or without artillery......

That's enough for now....to paraphrase someone else - I could go on [;)]



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 4:13:53 AM)

Check out WiF .. [X(]
IDG



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 9:54:26 PM)

Regretfully, I suspect this game will fall by the wayside as many have.  It has some good things which makes it fun but it has some serious problems that will eventually make it one you drop in favor of the next new game.

I have played CWIE which as far as I can tell the oldest computer wargame still played regularly.  It was release in 95.  I have played it since then and still play it daily.  It was War in Europe ported to computer.  There is no AI no fancy graphics just a solid historical simulation of WWII.  It's simplified portral of air and navy is poor but seems to be acceptable.  I believe the success of the game is directly related to the fact that the game plays historically.  The Axis very rarely wins but he is able to do most of what was done in the war.  The map size puts all games at awe. 

This game does not attempt to recreate history which many on the boards say they like but the games that have lasted not only CWIE but the board games also always attempted to simulate history.  Without an attempt at history the game will always be a game and not a simulation so the gamers who always move on to the next new thing.  The wargames who are attempting to beat a simulation of history will move on because balance is not the issue it is beating history that they want to do.

Certainly simulations are not perfect but without them you dont get the feel that you beat what the world said couldnt be done.  Playing Axis you want to defeat Russia or England make better headway in Africa etc to have that feeling.  Playing Allies you want to hold France, Russia wants to take Berlin and you want to get to Berllin before the Allies did.

The poor represntation of PBEM doesnt immerse you into the game so you loose alot with the present presentation. 

The commanders idea seems good but they make them so expensive that I for one rarely find the cost worthwhile.  I doubt from what I have experienced these commanders will add enough for the points.  I do buy the cheap ones once in awhile.

Those should really be free.  There salary was really part of the units no big bonus was paid them to account for paying for them.

Convoy is great but again gets very little use.  Subs to expensive to buy so no real use.  Ships overall feel wrong.  Capital ships need to be named as in the real war.  Carriers are so far off I will ignore complain about them again.  Lack of cruisers weird.  Destroyers kewl.  Battelship use is also strange.  They just dont seem like supply ships to me.  No amph huge problem.

I could go on for pages but these are just a few of the things that will cause this game to fall by the wayside overtime.  20 years game I doubt seriously.  If it is still being played heavily after 20 months I will be greatly surprised.









Syagrius -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 10:03:04 PM)

After reading all of your post I conclude that you simply don't like the game. Its your choice and you have the right to say it, however be aware that we got the message, so why dont take a break mm? [;)]



firepowerjohan -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 10:23:03 PM)

We respect your opinion Targul, but our goal is not to please all different sorts of players and make a game that fits all. There are plenty of WW2 games out there and if you think the focus of CEaW is wrong then it is most likely quicker to pick some other game with other focus than to wait and try to convert CEaW into something that it isn't.

If you want more historical accuracy for good or worse then there are already ways of doing that in the game both using options or using mods. We believe that if we make the game too realistic with 4:1 economic advantages in favour of the Allies then some ppl would be happy but also alot of others that like the competetive side of gaming would not like it. Frankly it is very possible to make mods where Axis have much better units by adjusting organisation levels and techs and instead compensate by bumping up the USSR and USA economy considerably making that numbers.

We never claim that CEaW is suppoed to be 100% accurate historically because we believe few ppl would want it that way, and there is no right or wrong in this question. A game has to have a focus and games are always a mix of playability and realism where having one too dominant will make the other one worse. To the extreme if certain things were exactly historical they would still mean that players know more than what Commanders in WW2 knew so you cannot create the same situation regardless. In a game you will know that USSR have a harsh winter and that you might get seriously hurt there, so you would be more cautious than in real WW2 not to repeat the same mistakes. Just an example, so 100% realism is not possible in either case and it is not our goal since this is a game. Our goal is to make it as realistic as possible without limiting the playability and competetiveness in playing it. [:)]

I also believe that the options we offer should satisfy it. We have handicap levels for both Axis and Allies, if you think Axis is too strong then why not set the Allied handicap higher. Furthermore, there are some good mods already where you can play with more historical proportions of units and OOB.



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 10:27:35 PM)

Never said I dont like the game that is what you said.  Question was will the game last 20 years answer is no. 

Obviously you have failed to read most of my posts since I have always said the game is fun but lacking in many major areas.  It has good points also and I have noted them many times.  Probably as many times as I have noted the bad areas.

If you dislike my posts suggest you dont read them.  But games do not improve by telling everyone they are great they are prefect I like it all.  They improve due to complaints and observation by players pointed out on these boards.  Designers read these and consider them to improve the game.

These designers specifically respond to the complaints and observations very well.  I have written to many of them and recieved replies from them.  We dont always agree but they at least know what I like and what I dont.  Not sure what you like or dont like.  Example was I really disliked not having playback.  They finally after asking asking and asking told me it was a irrevocable design decision that was not fixable.  I have not complained about that again.  Told them I would not.  Doesnt mean I like it but nothing they can do about it so no use in talking about it.  Now the question is how to fix it by other means.  So far I havent come up with an idea but when I do I will be posting that suggestion also.

I have almost every computer war game made.  Most I played once or twice threw them in the worthless pile and have not played them again.  Didnt bother to go to there boards; games had no potential for me. 

Some I played for a couple weeks went to boards got no responses and dropped them as designers where not listening. 

Then there are the few that are good but need work and the designers are listening.  HOI was one.  HOI2 another.  SC2 and this one.  I correspond on the boards for these and CWIE.  These games have great potential but all can use improvement.  HOI series I dont like the real time but otherwise I have no problems with it.  SC2 I hate the squares but otherwise find it excellant.  CWIE needs to implement air, navy and politic that are more controlable. 


So you really did not get the message.  If I dont like a game I dont spend anytime trying to make it as good as it can be I just toss it in the junk pile and buy a new one.



Bigfish -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 10:39:11 PM)

@Johan,

developing a game with an historical background and historical facts could not ignore to much of them to be playable for the masses. Otherwise the difficulty levels should named as "how we think it should be" and "more historical".

Our critic is not negative(!) - we say this words in hope for improvments which results an a better game [&o]

As targul said: If i don't the like the game, i would not spent so many time here - espacily with my problem to the english language [8|].



firepowerjohan -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 10:41:02 PM)

I am not saying that game balance is not important, quite the contrary that is what is the most important. We want game balance so that all unit types come into play and that you cannot exploit certain strategies.  We are not trying to make the game more historical setup so that Allies have this big advantage, we are well aware that Axis has a better chance to win in this game than in real WW2 so maybe they have 50%-50% here and in real they had 20%-80% and we intend to keep it near 50-50 and leave the rest for players to be set using the Advantage settings and mods.

@BigFish
Same answer, this is just a missunderstanding [:)]
We want feedback on bugs and gameplay of course and are doing everything we can to balance the game for the next and future patches. But we are not aiming for shifting the more playable and competetive focus to a more strict historical focus. A strict historical focus could mean that the Axis vs Allies fundamental differences are much larger than currently (unit ratios, unit density on map and economy). We chose a hybrid in this case with Allies having stronger economy instead of historically overwhelming economy, which of course means game is more 50-50 (in 1939 scenario that is) instead of a 20-80 situation in favour of Allies.



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/17/2007 11:17:20 PM)

Economics is not the problem as I see it.  Balance should be based on the units abilities. Make the French really poor.  Make early English with good and poor units but give them enough money to build tech and units.  Russia same problem make them poor at start but quickly upgrade tech and units. 

These things can balance the game without making the actual game ahistorical.  It is difficult to get that balance but the Axis was victorious and deadly.  It took along time for the Allies and Soviets to get adequate forces to combat the Axis threat but they did and once they did they finally overwhelmed the Axis.  Since you have commanders add them to the mix at start these could make areas tougher and better. 

You have all the resources here to make this a historical accurate and balanced game it only requires you look at it from both angles each time you make a change.



Happycat -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/18/2007 6:45:43 AM)

One of the saving graces of CEAW, as with many other games before it, is that it can be "modded". If one wants a more "historical" experience, make the changes deemed necessary to obtain that result, and then seek like-minded players if PBEM is your thing.

Stauffenberg has modded the map ever so slightly (extra ports, resources, garrisons---but done in a very balanced way). He and I are involved in a PBEM, and part way through Stauffenberg suggested that the number of rail moves for Germany and Russia needed to be tweaked. Easy! So now we are both enjoying a game that reflects our vision of what a wargame should be.

Is it perfect? No. Am I still playing it, after two months or so? Yes!

I have many games, and lots of time on my hands, but this CEAW has kept me away from alternatives such as HOI2, Medieval Total War, GGWAW-AWD, to mention but a few.

So, I think that the answer to the question "What is absolutely necessary ... for a game to last for years?" is really reduced to one requirement---that it can be modded by the player, to be exactly the game that the player wants it to be. [:)]



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/18/2007 8:15:28 PM)

Sorry but I have not and do not intend to Mod games.  I think it is great they have the ability but as you mentioned most games do.

If I wanted to write the program I would not buy the game. 

I have examined the instructions for modding and looked at the mod items. I would find it a daunting task. 

I say hip hip harah to those who mod and love there work but I just wanna play not program.



heroes99 -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 3:20:11 AM)

well me and my buddies buy this game because it is simple to get into and fun to play

There is a lot of suggestion to improve this game which is good but please dont turn it into another WiTP which until today I have not even complete a turn after few years of buying it

Is not that WiTP ( War in the Pacific ) a bad game infact is a very good if you are the type for it , you can see from the forum , there a lot players who still play the game until today , just that I cant go to the developer and tell them please make the game simpler , less historical so that I can get into it

There will be a group of wargamers who love complex , details and historical and there are a lot of games out there to satisfy them

So let CEAW be what it meant to be and let work together to focus on how to improve the game in terms of reporting bugs / game interface and not trying change it to another type of game

Finally , yes I wlll be still playing this for time to come



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 4:46:38 AM)

See hes a Hero also .. And makes good pointy .. as in units ..
Ire was ere ..
IDG




SMK-at-work -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 4:55:18 AM)

quote:


There will be a group of wargamers who love complex , details and historical and there are a lot of games out there to satisfy them


IMO this is not true - there are a group of gamers who want historical AND simple - but alas we only get one or other.

There's so much computing power in a PC these days that IMO there is plenty of rom for doing complex stuff in hte background and presenting hte player with fairly simple mechanisms at hte UI.  No-one has really tried it yet tho although IMO Guns of August is getting there.



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 5:18:44 AM)

Really that is actually very interesting comment ..
I find the Civil War and Napoleonics to be the best challenges .. WW I is very close in the same framework ..
Simple structure .. Very Tactical and also very hard to master .. The AI .. maybe in 1000 Years will be able to accomplish this .. [&o]

At least in Ire time ..
And there are lots of us who really enjoy the detail .. Thats why wee keep buying games .. To see who has the best .. Then wee play .. lol
To see who is able to really effect the actual mechanics .. [X(]   Problem solving hepls ..  [;)]
Oh Dear .. Was that my outloud voice .. [:'(]
IDG



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 6:23:56 AM)

Actually I consider WiTP Grisby only descent work.  I must however admit it is too complicated and slow for serious play.  I have and had a sincere desire to play that area but after a week or so I was really not anywhere in the game I gave up.  My fault in this case and not his far as I can tell.

SMK is correct I think many of us want historical and simple.  The solution is probably to allow players to turn on and off different factors.  Say you have no interest in supply you turn it off or let the computer handle it.  Same with air, navy building whatever.   This allow as much detail as you like without requiring you to really do anything.   I would say even all the player to change his mind and turn it back on or off. 

Not a WWI fan so I didnt buy Guns of August glad to hear it has a good presentation.  I did buy the one before it American Civil War blue and grey I think it is called.  I spent many days trying to figure it out and complication was just too much for me so I have never even completed a turn.  I play Campaign in North Africa consider one of the most complicated games made but it is nothing compared to Civil War.



IrishGuards -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 6:33:56 AM)

Targul .. you ever play TSS .. BGG ..
Teerible Swift Sword .. SPI
Battleground Gettysburg .. Talon I guess ..
Excellent games .. And also WV by SPI .. Wellonton's Victory ..
IDG



heroes99 -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 6:44:02 AM)

In fact I just got AACW Blue and Gray , my attempt to involve with complex wargame

One thing I can comment at the moment , it is a complex game but without much micro management - the tutorial is very good in getting you into the game - though the interface need time to get use to

targul , you can try the Shiloh scenario ( 6 turns ) and there is a excellent AAR on this scenario

Cheers



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 8:15:23 AM)

Thanks Hero but I have put that one in the rubbish pile and I dont have sufficient desire to pull it up and look  at it again.



heroes99 -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 11:43:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SMK-at-work

quote:


There will be a group of wargamers who love complex , details and historical and there are a lot of games out there to satisfy them


IMO this is not true - there are a group of gamers who want historical AND simple - but alas we only get one or other.

There's so much computing power in a PC these days that IMO there is plenty of rom for doing complex stuff in hte background and presenting hte player with fairly simple mechanisms at hte UI. No-one has really tried it yet tho although IMO Guns of August is getting there.




Hi @smk , just went to the Gun of August forum , read some of the AAR , look good , never have WWI yet ...is it a very complex game ?
tempted hmmm...already bought few games this month ..and the SC2 expansion is coming up ...sorry if this getting out of topic ..

Cheers



firepowerjohan -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 12:06:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: heroes99

well me and my buddies buy this game because it is simple to get into and fun to play

There is a lot of suggestion to improve this game which is good but please dont turn it into another WiTP which until today I have not even complete a turn after few years of buying it

Is not that WiTP ( War in the Pacific ) a bad game infact is a very good if you are the type for it , you can see from the forum , there a lot players who still play the game until today , just that I cant go to the developer and tell them please make the game simpler , less historical so that I can get into it

There will be a group of wargamers who love complex , details and historical and there are a lot of games out there to satisfy them

So let CEAW be what it meant to be and let work together to focus on how to improve the game in terms of reporting bugs / game interface and not trying change it to another type of game

Finally , yes I wlll be still playing this for time to come



Thanks and your input is valuable. The feedback we get from forums is not a random sample of the CEaW players since the most dedicated players are the ones that post mostly on forums. So, some ppl do 1000+ posts a year, some post 5 posts a year and some are just forum lurkers that read or not even read the forums very often. It is a balancing act really, if we were to please the hard core players that are more vocal we would get a better reputation on the forums but it would also mean more ppl leave in silence leaving a smaller but more niched game.

We intent to improve gameplay and fix balance and bug but not at the cost of complicating the game for the players (micromanagement) so opinion from the more silent masses just confirm this from time to time that we are on the right track [:)]



targul -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 7:18:11 PM)

Think you are way off Firepower but good luck with that philosphy.

I believe people buy many of these games based on the posts in the forums. I certainly know I do. If the forum says it is too compliated I dont buy normally but if they say it is too definitely will not buy it.

There is a balance but it is not necessary to sacrifice a realism or simplisty or complication.

A better approach would be to allow players to determine the amount of complication they desire. Examples would be:

I want Amph allow them to exist. Make a build with benefits and disadvantages so they could be used or your present transports.

Have weather on the map make it optional.

Vichy give it units. Make it an option.

Diplomacy options.

I could go on and on but options are the key to gaining to most from both the game and number of people who will want to play it. This allows all players to choose historical vs ahistorical. It allows people who want to micromanage to choose the level they wish to do that at.

You nor the company should rely solely on your personal desire for simplisty or historical operation but instead you should attempt to satisfy all the demands of your customers. Now we all know that is impossible but the attempt is important.

Honesty in the company response is also critical to long term sales of your products. Example is the argument over playback. I was very vocal on that issue one which I still consider important but once one of you responded with the response that you could not do it because of an earlier design decision that was not changeable now I understood. I no longer complain about that issue but the first responses where really out of line. They implied you wouldnt do playback because you didnt like them but that was really not correct it was because you couldnt now do that.

So far I believe this company is on a good track for long term this game but for there future products being bought But as with all things there is still improvements that can make you more desireable.








heroes99 -> RE: WW II Computer Game .. Scope .. (8/19/2007 9:51:40 PM)

I think what Johan trying to said is that they will try listen to every category of players instead of just focus on the majority

Meaning if there is 100 players vs 20 players on some subject , they will not just said ok guys ...we will do what the 100 players want us to do because we will be having better reputation and popular by doing so

I suggest why don't we just start a wish list thread and let players suggest what they want

Let the developer run through it and decide for themselves what things they want to change or add first .

If they decide not to change or add certain aspect of the game , let it be and it is not end of the road , things can be consider in near future

No point having argument like I want this vs NO I cannot give you this vs why you cannot give me this and so on

Finally I do agree on the point to make option available for players to choose the level of details but again here if this going to take a lot fo work , maybe you can consider making an expansion in future .

Again will like to say thanks for giving me and my buddies a lot fun with this game

Cheers








Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125