Strategic Command or Europe at War (Full Version)

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



Message

Knavery -> Strategic Command or Europe at War (1/20/2010 3:35:39 AM)

Since these are the Matrix forums, I'm sure people will say the Europe at War. I guess I'm interested to know for those that own both is if I own Strategic Command is EaW worth the price of admission? Thanks!



lparkh -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (1/27/2010 6:11:57 PM)

Here's my two cents. I own SC2 and Commander: Napoleon at War. Not quite what you ask but relevant.
-- NAP -- I really like the design. The AI was poor, very passive. Sounds like it could be fun as multiplayer. From this I *suspect* that might be similar AI issues for Europe at War. I did read the AI has issues in North Africa. On the other hand I think they released to consoles so that would mean even more development time. So perhaps AI is better. But NAP stopped me from buying EAW
-- SC2 -- excellent AI and good design. A step more in complexity then EAW but not at level of say World in Flames :-) Engine been worked over for many years. A global version coming out. I played the european. There is a pacific version which got a good response (and AI was good apparently).
-- Making History II -- due in february. Another interesting entry... have not played first one..
Hope this helps,
Lin



Harvey Birdman -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (1/28/2010 6:34:29 PM)

Do you own SC or SC2?

I've played SC and only played the SC2 demo?

SC was too dominated by Carriers and airpower. ie you had to gain air supremacy to punch holes in the enemy line. So if you teched up you airpower rapidly, you'd get the experience advantage and then air supremacy and then game won.

In CEAW units can be forced to retreat so you don't have to rely on 2 armies or armour and brute airpower to break a line.

In the CEAW economy you've got economic and manpower and oil(if you play with the oil option) production, which make the economy more challenging. If you use up too much manpower your corps have lower quality/efficiency and if you use up all your oil, all your units that use oil can't move or fight.

In Ceaw, you've got garrisons, inf corps, motorized inf corps, tank corps, fighters, tac bombers,strat bombers, CV's,BB's,DD's subs and convoys. Since all the land units are corps, you've got a much bigger map to manuever on.

The land combat system in Ceaw is more complex. The attacker gets a shock attack to suppress enemy strength points, then the defender gets a regular attack to destroy attacker strength points, then finally the attacker gets a regular attack to destroy defender strength points. So if the attacker is unlucky you can get whacked.
Since armour is expensive to repair: 1st attack air/BB bombardment, 2) infantry attack and 3) armour or infantry attack.

Each unit has 14 combat values. So on the surface the combat system looks simple, but it's more complex then you think it is.

Yeah, Ceaw is worth the simple ww2 strategic game price of admission.










lparkh -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (1/29/2010 4:08:50 PM)

I agree the design of CEAW sounds good. What did you think of the computer opponent?



firepowerjohan -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (1/29/2010 8:13:22 PM)

Combined arms combat is very accurately modelled in CEAW, so it depends on what you are after. CEAW has less diplomacy but more focus on logistics (oil, manpower) and military battles than most WW2 games.



Harvey Birdman -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (2/2/2010 9:29:51 PM)

The AI opponent is fine. I think the allies ai only does amphib invasions of northern france. Other coastal cities can probably be undefended. But, I always garrison captured coastal cities, like I would against a human opponent.

I think the allies ai would be better if it kicked the axis out of africa, then invade italy, then invade france in 44 rsther then 42.


Managing manpower and oil consumption prevents me from becoming an axis steamroller against the allies ai.

I built a huge infantry army for a june 41 Barbarossa and my manpower was down to 75% It's now down to 55% and I haven't built a new german unit since june 41. Gemany has over 1200 unused pp's and not enough manpower, whereas Italy still has manpower and not enough pp's/turn.

I let italy take yugo,greece and algeria and realize I should have let italy capture russian cities. Soon eygpt, iraq, iran and the caucasas will be italian.
Then I'll have the oil to build: my first tank corps, strat bomber, CV, and BB, my second fighter and tac bomber, my fourtg? motorized inf corps and sub.







lparkh -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (2/3/2010 12:45:43 AM)

Thanks for replying. How much trouble are the soviets giving you given your manpower limits?



Harvey Birdman -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (2/3/2010 10:32:11 AM)

quote:

Thanks for replying. How much trouble are the soviets giving you given your manpower limits?


Not much. The first western allies invasion of france in 42 caused some problems on the eastern front when I shipped 7? units to repel it. But the western allies shot their wad. The 43 invasion of france was smaller and easier repelled.

I did unseal the crimea and a soviet unit came into my backdoor. But it got caught of from supply, then zoc pocketed by 2 units for a few turns until it can be killed when it's effectiveness hits the redzone. Which is the strategy I've been using as much as possible to minimize causalities, given the manpower limits. But I now realize german or italian garrison units can do that job.

Considering that I saved my axis naval units and never attacked allied convoys until jan 43, I'm not hurting. The med has been cleared of allied ships and the italian bb's are being repaired to be sent to join the axis subs in the atlantic.

The problem for germany(unless your doing a sealion) is to conquer asap historical axis conquests plus sweden, spain, portugal, algeria. And secondly launch an effective barbarossa and battle of the atlantic.

I was unable to capture spain, algeria and greece aaap. Especially greece. I was unable to launch a barbarossa with an attack on leningrad asap from finland and I was unable launch the air based battle of the atlantic from northern france using subs as recon that I planned.



Harvey Birdman -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (2/7/2010 5:58:22 AM)

quote:

Combined arms combat is very accurately modelled in CEAW, so it depends on what you are after. CEAW has less diplomacy but more focus on logistics (oil, manpower) and military battles than most WW2 games.


Combined arms is modeled ok, except maybe for the losses tac bombers suffer from attacking capitals or for the effectiveness losses they inflict on units in capitals in the early years?

But Blitzkrieg is not modeled well. Blitzkrieg is tac air attack. Then Panzer attack and breakout. Then the momo infantry follow the panzer divisions to ensure the enemy is cut off from supply and to force the defender to attack to breakout of the pocket before or after the pocket is sealed. ie cauldron battle.

But I do like the zoc movement rules, I knew there was something funny about this game, when a 2 hex gap allowed full movement, rather than the usual 3 hex gap that allowed full movement.

The way the game works, my blitzkrieg against Russia consists of: tac air attacks then german inf corps(with +1 attack leaders if possible) attacks. If that doesn't achieve breakout for my tank corps they attack, then the momo inf. But I usually find the German momo inf are leading the charge at the next Soviet city. The Italian/Hungarian/Romanian momo inf corps of the same army group are attempting to cut off from supply the next batch of soviet units with their neighbouring army group axis minor or italiian momo inf corps while the german panzer corps is in the rear advancing one hex after helping the momo corps achieve operational mobility.

But the way the game works, I'd have to admit watching german or italian garrision units kick the crap out of Russian tank corps out of supply with redzone effectiveness is quite fun. Hopefully the Saints will kick the crap out of the Colts this Sunday.

One thing I'd have to admit is that Colonel John Boyd's flying column tactics from his "patterns of conflict" work great against your ai.





IainMcNeil -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (2/8/2010 9:33:03 AM)

For anyone sitting on the fence a series of great AAR's can be found here http://slitherine.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=78



firepowerjohan -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (2/9/2010 3:44:06 PM)

Yes, Commander Europe at War multiplayer has found its crowd of enthusiasts so there should be no problem for you to find human opponents (especially on the Slitherine forums).



Henri -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (4/6/2010 2:22:23 PM)

I have both SC2 and CEAW, and they are both good games. CEAW has a somewhat larger scale (more room to maneuver), and CEAW extends further East and contrary to SC2, that can make it tougher to wipe out the Soviet AI (in one CEAW game, despite having captured Moscow and Leningrad as well as all the oil fields, the Soviets have almost stalled me with waves of reinforcements from Astrakhan and other bases further East and up to 4 new Soviet partisans per turn.

Both games will give you your money's worth.

Henri



KingHunter -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (5/11/2010 3:52:27 PM)

I must say this. I have been playing these strategic games since EMPIRE (circa 1989), and this is by far the most entertaining game I have played. I would ask you all to look at what Iain and Johan post, since they are the moderators of the Slitherene Forum on CEaW. I have played this game since early 2009, against the AI and Human opponents, the AI is weak,and unless you balance the AI with all the advantages - it is really no challenge. But with Human Opponents, everything you know in your AI days goes out the window...



Shawkhan -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (5/11/2010 6:46:32 PM)

People who want to only play the AI should use a later year start in the game after you have become good enough. Honestly, many people already consider the game too hard even with the 1939 yearstart as they can't win against the AI . If you refuse to learn or use proper combined arms the game can be frustratingly hard. Once you can win as the Axis in the 1939 scenario, move up to 1940 starts. I consider myself above average at playing this game but still have great difficulty winning as the Axis against the AI with a 1942 start, and 1943 onward have always proven disastrous for me.



pvthudson01 -> RE: Strategic Command or Europe at War (5/22/2010 2:25:46 AM)

Im losing now in 43, I didnt think the Soviets would declare war if I left them alone but they did. Im fighting on two fronts now. I shot my wad trying to invade England, never got supply, and lost my foothold.

Many good units lost their lives there!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625