Observations on Commander... (Full Version)

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



Message

derhexer -> Observations on Commander... (10/26/2007 6:45:35 AM)

I bought Commander... because I'm an old board wargamer who wanted to get back into strategic gaming w/o the hassle of setting up the boards, laying out the pieces, figuring the odds, rolling the dice., etc.

Commander... is a fairly good simulation of some of the problems the leaders of the Axis and Allies faced, but it has some problems that I hope the developers address in subsequent releases.

1. Production. The technologies & industries to produce land, air and naval units are not interchangeable. The same industry that can roll out armored corps may not be able to build a batlleship or a wing of stratgeic bombers. There should be seperate production points for land, naval and air units.

2. Production lead times. It can take years to build a battleship. 6 turns (18 weeks) is just ridiculous.

3. Leaders. Commander... allows a player to buy a leader if they have about 100 production points. Just as if they wander into Generals 'R Us and ask for 2 Guderians and a Rommel. But, it can take decades to train good leaders. Scenarios should start with the historical leaders already in place (Rommel in North Africa in 1941, or Montgomery in France in 1940) There should also be a random factor built in to allow for the death or capture of a leader.

4. Invasions. Right now, if I can move corps to a seaport, I can embark them on transports, move the transports, then disembark them at another point with almost no limits on the number of transports. (ex., in the 1941 scenario I can embark 5 German, Italian and Bulgarian corps on transports in the 1st turn in the Mediterranean). But, the reality is few of the countries involved had unlimited transport capacity. There should be a seperate track of transport points that a country can add to by allocating prodution points.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Observations on Commander... (10/26/2007 11:54:41 AM)

Thanks for the feedback. These are really design decisions that were made to keep the game flowing and not get bogged down in detail and micro management. While they would enhance the realism of the game we feel these features would detract from the gameplay so they are not the kind of changes we're planning to make.



KarlXII -> RE: Observations on Commander... (10/31/2007 5:07:04 PM)

"Scenarios should start with the historical leaders already in place (Rommel in North Africa in 1941, or Montgomery in France in 1940) There should also be a random factor built in to allow for the death or capture of a leader. "

This seems to be a reasonable request. Perhaps not the capture of a leader but at least a very small chance that he could get killed.
All the rest opinions is as McNeil states, by design.



IainMcNeil -> RE: Observations on Commander... (10/31/2007 5:16:49 PM)

Leaders can get wounded.



derhexer -> RE: Observations on Commander... (11/2/2007 3:29:08 AM)

True, leaders can get wounded. I've already encountered that with sending Rommel to North Africa. That is realistic.

What is not realistic, tho, is that the game treats assigning a leader that same as fixing up a corps. A leader can't be assigned to a corps that has moved or been in combat until the next turn. If a player assigns a leader to a corps, then that corps can't move for a turn (3 weeks!). I can't figure out the reasoning behind that.

Also, there doesn't seem to be a way to transfer a leader other than moving the corp he has been assigned to



derhexer -> RE: Observations on Commander... (11/2/2007 3:44:10 AM)

"These are really design decisions that were made to keep the game flowing and not get bogged down in detail and micro management. While they would enhance the realism of the game we feel these features would detract from the gameplay so they are not the kind of changes we're planning to make."

Conducting a war is about detail and micro-management.

Be that as it may.

I don't know about the other players, but I'd be willing to pay for a more realistic version that includes
1. Realistic rules about leaders, including historical assignment, not treating assigning leaders as if the player was fixing up a unit, getting rid of using production points to create leaders, and allowing for transfer of leaders.
2. Good rules about production that don't involve an interchangeable pool of production points. The same resources that are used to build tanks can't be used to build battleships or bombers.
3. Realistic lead times to build units
4. Realistic rules about invasions with the ability to build transports linked to production points.
5. Rules about diplomacy. How about assigning each country a certain number of diplomacy points that they can use to try to influence neutrals? There'd have to be a random factor involved. For example, Germany could use their diplomatic points to true to bring Spain in as an ally, or possibly keep the US as a neutral.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Observations on Commander... (11/2/2007 4:36:58 AM)

Derhexer,

It sounds to me like you might be interested in taking a look at our World in Flames forum in the Coming Soon section. CEAW was designed to have some abstraction so that the gameplay could be more fun and fast-moving. WIF on the other hand seems to be more along your line of preference.

Regards,

- Erik



IainMcNeil -> RE: Observations on Commander... (11/2/2007 12:49:17 PM)

Leaders can be reassigned to the force pool by clicking the x next to their image.



paologvn -> RE: Observations on Commander... (2/17/2008 9:24:00 PM)

Hi,
like "derhexer" I am an old wargamer (table and computer) from Italy.

I bought CEaW few weeks ago, and I have completed three complete games with the Axis player, in different difficulty levels.
The rating after 3 games (against AI) is surely favourable and I think i will play again the game, also as the Allies player.

But...

When I found a good game (and CEaW is!) I immediately think about the details that it would to improve it. Below some ideas:

1. At first I have to notice that there is a mistake on the map. The trace of river Po interrupts his course in the middle of North Italy, but a tributary of river Rhone (that flows in France) cross the Alps and continue to flow in Italy instead. Correct please.

2. The rule on railway tranportation is good (not more than 2 ferry or you have to pay with industrial capacity points), but (as derhexer noticed) you can cross the sea with almost your complete Army whithout any connection with the actual capacity of the commercial fleet that is supposed to support the movement. This is completely unrelalistic.

3. The British Fleets in the Meditteranean Sea sleep for the entire game, and never try to intercept the traffic between Italy and North Africa and react only on italian direct attacks (even if more powerful). Really unrealistic!

4. A weak italian Army (1 armoured, 1 motorized 4 infantry corps supported with one figther and 1 tac bomber wing) can overrun British forces in western desert, conquer the Egypt, go over Lebanon and occupy Iraq and Persia with their oil reserves. The Allies don't react and only garrison units resist against the invasion. Really unrealistic!

5. Garrisons units are evidently not necessary. After the occupation of a Country the invader should not leave any unit in the conquered land (no revolts and partisans appeared only if the country is actually at war). This is not realistic (expecially if the invader is the Axis player). What's more, the Allies don't try to invade the uncontrolled country (I left France and Belgium without any garrison in '41, '42 an '43 but no invasion was attempted by the Allies.

6. The number and quality of units to build is not related with the historical Capacity to buid them and are connected only with money and (I suppose) with trained people.

7. The rules about limited oil availability are surely good. But conquering an oil source if it negates the source to the enemy it doesn't enable the conquerer in using it. The oil should be transported to the industries on the original countries or distributed to the units (assuming that fuel is immediately available from the sources). But in the game immediately Axis receives oil points after the occupation of oil sources...

8. While in Europe the railway net covers practically the entire continent (and so you can supply the units wherever they are) this is not valid in North Africa. Allies and Axis units should be supplied there with oil, ammunitions and food. And you should have to transfert this goods through the sea. Why don't you think about "supply units" on terrain and "supply lines" on the sea?

9. Debarkments. During the war debarkments without landing crafts were performed only against unprepared coasts. (Norway) If the enemy was alerted it was mandatory to use landing crafts for massive land and supply the units). With the current rules the player is non only autorized to transfer forces from port to port (as actually happenend) but also to debark troops on shores of enemy controlled countries. Not realistic at all.

10. Industries. I think that you should ridesign the "general" possibility about research. It should be possible to invest money on industrial growth (as it appends in Jonh Prodos' 3rd Reich for example) without mixing this with "radars" or "organiztion" (I cannot really realize what you intend with it). Instead you didn't foresee to invest on synthetic fuels for example.

I think that is enough for now, and, after all, I think that the game is a good game and worth the money. But try to think about what I wrote.

paologvn

PS (Please, don't replay that inserting rules based on what I suggest the playability will suffer, ..... and "World in Flames" is not available yet.






paologvn -> RE: Observations on Commander... (2/17/2008 10:51:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paologvn

Hi,
like "derhexer" I am an old wargamer (table and computer) from Italy.

I bought CEaW few weeks ago, and I have completed three complete games with the Axis player, in different difficulty levels.
The rating after 3 games (against AI) is surely favourable and I think i will play again the game, also as the Allies player.

But...

When I found a good game (and CEaW is!) I immediately think about the details that it would to improve it. Below some ideas:

1. At first I have to notice that there is a mistake on the map. The trace of river Po interrupts his course in the middle of North Italy, but a tributary of river Rhone (that flows in France) cross the Alps and continue to flow in Italy instead. Correct please.

2. The rule on railway tranportation is good (not more than 2 ferry or you have to pay with industrial capacity points), but (as derhexer noticed) you can cross the sea with almost your complete Army whithout any connection with the actual capacity of the commercial fleet that is supposed to support the movement. This is completely unrelalistic.

3. The British Fleets in the Meditteranean Sea sleep for the entire game, and never try to intercept the traffic between Italy and North Africa and react only on italian direct attacks (even if more powerful). Really unrealistic!

4. A weak italian Army (1 armoured, 1 motorized 4 infantry corps supported with one figther and 1 tac bomber wing) can overrun British forces in western desert, conquer the Egypt, go over Lebanon and occupy Iraq and Persia with their oil reserves. The Allies don't react and only garrison units resist against the invasion. Really unrealistic!

5. Garrisons units are evidently not necessary. After the occupation of a Country the invader should not leave any unit in the conquered land (no revolts and partisans appeared only if the country is actually at war). This is not realistic (expecially if the invader is the Axis player). What's more, the Allies don't try to invade the uncontrolled country (I left France and Belgium without any garrison in '41, '42 an '43 but no invasion was attempted by the Allies.

6. The number and quality of units to build is not related with the historical Capacity to buid them and are connected only with money and (I suppose) with trained people.

7. The rules about limited oil availability are surely good. But conquering an oil source if it negates the source to the enemy it doesn't enable the conquerer in using it. The oil should be transported to the industries on the original countries or distributed to the units (assuming that fuel is immediately available from the sources). But in the game immediately Axis receives oil points after the occupation of oil sources...

8. While in Europe the railway net covers practically the entire continent (and so you can supply the units wherever they are) this is not valid in North Africa. Allies and Axis units should be supplied there with oil, ammunitions and food. And you should have to transfert this goods through the sea. Why don't you think about "supply units" on terrain and "supply lines" on the sea?

9. Debarkments. During the war debarkments without landing crafts were performed only against unprepared coasts. (Norway) If the enemy was alerted it was mandatory to use landing crafts for massive land and supply the units). With the current rules the player is non only autorized to transfer forces from port to port (as actually happenend) but also to debark troops on shores of enemy controlled countries. Not realistic at all.

10. Industries. I think that you should ridesign the "general" possibility about research. It should be possible to invest money on industrial growth (as it appends in Jonh Prodos' 3rd Reich for example) without mixing this with "radars" or "organiztion" (I cannot really realize what you intend with it). Instead you didn't foresee to invest on synthetic fuels for example.

I think that is enough for now, and, after all, I think that the game is a good game and worth the money. But try to think about what I wrote.

paologvn

PS (Please, don't reply that inserting rules based on what I suggest the playability will suffer, ..... and "World in Flames" is not available yet.








Der Kuenstler -> RE: Observations on Commander... (10/25/2008 3:06:30 PM)

I think it's fine like it is - it's meant to be a light, fun game of strategy - and it accomplishes those goals. You can play HOI II if you want more realism and detail.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.703125