RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (Full Version)

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



Message


Marc von Martial -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/13/2007 12:31:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Veldor

3. It seems all reviewers of matrix games either find every game a 5/8 or better or basically (Somewhat like this guy) like nearly none of them. So no demo, no useful reviews, no real AAR's in this case, might make it a bit tougher a choice. A few of us should really get together and start the ultimate fair review site (with a far more complex scoring system that ends up without every game ending up as a "Must Buy". Better for Matrix anyway as its not believable every game they make is great no matter how bad they wish that were true!



Did you check the reviews thread?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1520773




Vypuero -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/13/2007 4:17:22 PM)

Well, I have been playing some excellent games in TCP/IP mode that have been many hours long, and each game has been a challenging and enjoyable experience.  What the naysayers are not telling you is how much better the overall system is regarding many areas.  One is the map and maneuver, compared to a couple of little squares in SC2 for example, CEAW has many hexes and a good supply and zoc system that works fairly realistically and is visually easy to grasp.  The game models manpower, oil, and production well.  Technology gives you many options to choose.  The effectiveness stat makes a great deal of difference as well and gives an excellent dynamic to exhaustion and quality and the like. 

Diplomacy is nice but overrated - for one they have little evidence to back up the hypotheticals - for another having the entry dates standard or slightly randomized seems to work pretty well.  They don't tell you how many bugs including scripts and the like can induce - things that become wildly inaccurate, either through AI or human manipulation.  I have seen people try to attack the various neutrals and sometimes it works, sometimes it does not, but it remains an interesting strategy.  US entry is highly arguable - barring vast changes in the war, the US only entered the war because of Pearl Harbor (outside of the scope of this game) and then Hitler's DoW on the USA, which he thought would help bring the Japanese in to help vs. Russia.

So sure, there are things that can be added to the game - but if you have ever designed anything, every additional variable adds the possibility of more bugs and issues - and this game is remarkably bug free.




Jabba -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/13/2007 7:01:32 PM)

I’ve just got this game and I must say I’m impressed. It’s smooth and addictive and the interface is wonderfully intuitive. There are tough decisions to make each turn.

On the downside, realism is somewhat limited by the simplicity of the mechanics. On the one hand there are no weather effects and so no winter lull in campaigning. On the other hand, most things (the Fall of France, the conquest of the Balkans etc) tend to play out over several turns, somewhat slower than they did historically. The net result is that these two things tend to cancel each other out, and the end result is more realistic than one might expect!

After one game, I believe the most serious drawback is the passivity of the AI. Do I need to garrison my conquests? It’s not clear that I do, as the AI has yet to launch any amphibious counter-attacks. In North Africa, the AI (the Allies) allowed itself to be steamrollered quickly, without any attempt to reinforce the area.

I wish there were a few more ports on the map (Antwerp?), accurately reflecting their importance to World War II strategy.




KarlXII -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/13/2007 8:04:13 PM)

Actually the only drawback at all with this wonderful game when playing multiplayer is the lack of a good AI. The problem for me is that I only have time to play against the AI so for me I am quite dissappointed by now. Having played the campaign as Axis fron 1939 at default settings and conquered Russia by summer of 1943 I see no meaning to continue the war. The passivity and lack of coordination of the AI is its major drawback.

Now I´ve started a new game as Allied with Axis getting all but one step below max advantage. The result so far ? First, the AI receives a lot of more troops to start with and that in itself makes it much harder. It has just conquered Benelux, France, Denmark and Yugoslavia in may 1941 and is now moving up towards the russian front. I wonder if the AI is scripted to do exactly the same thing in every game against it ? Will it ever attempt to take Norway, Spain or Greece ?




Vypuero -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/14/2007 4:09:53 PM)

The AI is non-scripted, so it focuses on taking the capitals.  It goes for Yugoslavia and the various smaller Nations but I don't believe it ever takes Norway, Spain, or Greece.  That is just too tough for it to do as a human will pretty much smash it trying that.  In fact humans often can't do it either.




Lucky1 -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/30/2007 11:23:52 AM)

Ok. First off, I will preface my comments as being:
a) my opinions (i.e., others can and will disagree); and
b) although they are critical, they are being made with the hope that might be addressed (preferably in a patch -- GGWAWAWD has been quite diligent in this fashion, as has Frank Hunter's team).

In terms of the CEAW's interface and styling, I have no complaints. The graphics / UI are clear, and convey all that needs to be seen. Anyone complaining about the interface might not be suited to the gaming genre (I am old enough to remember tokens, matrices, and calculators....). Visually, the game is just fine. Indeed, it is quite elegant.

However, I must aver some significant disappointment with CEAW. Most notably, the computer turn takes way too long -- especially if one is playing with fog of war. Frankly, I have no desire to watch a static screen for several minutes between turns. While we all might agree that computer games can be a waste of time, this takes it to new levels. Although I might be wrong on this score, I am willing to bet that most wargamers are adults, with limited amounts of time on their hands. In short, the game needs to have the option to disable viewing computer moves and/or combats. This option exists in Gary Grigsby's World at War: A World Divided, and eliminates a ton of wasted time.  I would hope that it could be easily implemented in CEAW. A must for any patch....

CEAW's AI is quite poor. Admittedly, I am sure the game is much better against a human opponent, but this is not always an option for many gamers. As such, those who cannot do the TCIP thing and who are hoping for a modicum of challenge from the AI SHOULD NOT BUY THIS GAME. Against the computer, the game is not very challenging. In my very first game (fog of war, random tech, normal settings, oil use on etc.)I kicked the allies out of Poland, France, Denmark, Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Yugoslavia, Cairo, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran, all by early 1942 (I left Greece alone). Russia declared war on Germany around the same time, but was (paridoxically) not at all prepared to go to war and I was able to knock her out by late 1943 (I might have done it faster had I understood the victory conditions). Meanwhile, although the entire mediterranean was minimally garrisoned, the Western Allies constantly had approximately 10-15 troops TRYING to make landings across Normandy.  However, I simply plugged the coastline with troops, thereby preventing the computer from making any landings. The transports simply piled up off the coast. Of course, had the AI tried to land elsewhere, it would have found my empire most weakly defended. Similarly, the AI did not contest Africa and it made no effort to intercept my troops as they were sent from Italy. In short, the AI is not remotely a challenge. Too, I abandoned submarine warfare almost immediately as being not even remotely cost effective.

In terms of other game liabilities, I find that submarine warfare is simply not viable with the current game mechanics - there is no ability to hit and dash (or submerge or whatever). Effectively, a sub hits the transport (if he can find one), and then is stuck in the open for all the destroyers and fleets in the Atlantic to converge on at the same time. Clash of Steel and Frank Hunter's Guns of August model naval warfare better IMHO.

I DO like how the game integrates oil and population factors. The reasearch functions work well. The zones of control are reasonably well done as well. However, the game could benefit from having group attacks (i.e., allow multiple units to simultaneously attack a single unit or give atack bonuses when a unit is surrounded). Similarly, strategic bombing never seems to have come into play.

To conclude, when CEAW was first announced, it struck me as reminiscent of my favorite WWII strategy level game of all time - SSI's 1993 (?) Clash of Steel. Leaving aside issues of aesthetics, Clash of Steel remains the better game. (Any developers reading this post, take heed -- I am not the only one who has observed that Clash of Steel is dying to be be redone / updated for TCIP). This is too bad, because I was really hoping that CEAW (which is so like COS in many ways) might have taken things to a new level.





KarlXII -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (11/30/2007 1:39:05 PM)

I agree with most of what Lucky1 just has said. My only comment is that I am prepared to wait long for the AI to make its turn IF THE AI IS GOOD!!!.
I regret I bought the game as I play in single player mode 95% of the time.




blackcloud6 -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (12/29/2007 12:15:11 AM)

quote:

there's nothing wrong with them as games with a military background, but they are not historical simulations IMO.


Well, it is very hard to judge whether a game simulates WWII.  A pure sim would probably be no fun and one that throws history to the wind would not appeal to the history minded players.   

So does CEaW give you a feel that you are fighting WWII at the Strategic Operational level?     Do some wild things happen to spoil it?




greenit -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (1/13/2008 11:20:57 PM)

Great game. But is it possible to have for PBEM games either 1) a timed option for each turn, and/or 2) stop/limit/display the number of times each PBEM game turn can/has been redone?




56ajax -> RE: List of Whats Wrong With This Game! (1/31/2008 10:43:50 AM)

I am only on version 1.0 of this game and I have found it very easy to drive and configure and enjoyable as well.  Its good fun.  What I dont like - seems no point to building German subs and some units when (logically) surrounded seem to stay in supply and be re-supplied forever.  See what the patches bring.   And thanks to the developers.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.96875