Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ?

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/29/2007 4:15:54 PM

KarlXII

Posts: 259
Joined: 8/21/2005
From: Stockholm
Status: offline

I am planning to buy Commander - Europe at war but want help from you gamers.

I never liked Strategic Command 1 or Gary Grigsbys World at War because of the high scale which almost only considers strategic moves and operations. That is too high a level for me. I love the level in Panzer General (operational level) where you still could build frontlines unlike in the high strategic games.

Ceaw seems to be on a lower, more operational level, more like Panzer General 2 (or almost above it). Is that correct ?

So can anyone tell if and why this game is better than Strategic Command and/or Gary Grigsbys World at War ?

And while we�re at it...is the AI any good ? I will mainly play as a single player and only occasionally playing in hotseat mode.

Thanks for any advice on this.

Post #: 1

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/29/2007 4:34:50 PM

Syagrius

Posts: 165
Joined: 5/12/2006
Status: offline

CEaW have a PG "feel" however you have to take care of production and research (which are very easy to handle). For me, it is the best WWII strategy game out there!

(in reply to KarlXII)

Post #: 2

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/29/2007 5:15:41 PM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Hi Karl,

While CEAW is still a Grand Strategy game, the map does have more hexes than most (and rather than areas as in GGWAW) so there's a lot more operational flavor in terms of the maneuver and combat. It still has all the grand strategy as well though, so if it was only the scale that was bothering you you'll probably like it.

I can't say if it's better or worse than the others, since that's really subjective, but I'll say that I think it's a very good game and a very enjoyable one. I think SC is more "beer and pretzels" than CEAW, while GGWAW is more serious (and global), but each has their strength and weaknesses.

The AI plays a decent game, except perhaps in North Africa, but if you give it a slight advantage it will probably beat you up for a while until you master the game. It's definitely going to give you your money's worth of entertainment IMHO. This should be a delight against a human opponent.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Syagrius)

Post #: 3

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/29/2007 8:09:20 PM

Spechtmeise

Posts: 82
Joined: 7/1/2005
Status: offline

I'll second that. I have all of the games you mentioned on my harddrive, and I play all of them. CEAW ranks top in my list because the interface is very user friendly, and the gameplay is as smooth as no other game of this flavor.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)

Post #: 4

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/29/2007 11:20:59 PM

Krasny

Posts: 315
Joined: 7/3/2003
Status: offline

my fave grand strategy game is HoI2, but CEaW is great knockabout fun

(in reply to Spechtmeise)

Post #: 5

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/30/2007 1:50:29 AM

larizona55

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline

You might find the below Armchair General article of interest, an apples to apples comparison of WWII Grand Strategy games including CEAW, SC2 and GGWW

http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=3559&page=1&cat=59

(in reply to Krasny)

Post #: 6

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/30/2007 3:01:38 AM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

I think the article misses some key elements of tactical battle and strategy that I have only found in commander:

1) At first glance, it appears not so many unit types, what they dont mention is how tech makes the basic units exceptionally variable in function
2) Manpower - few games model this at all, and few do it well
3) Tactics - Lines of battle and supply rules work exceptionally well even though they seem very simple
4) Battle fatigue - effectiveness models this well

That any many more subtleties these reviews often miss because they dont spend the hours of play to find them.

(in reply to larizona55)

Post #: 7

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/30/2007 3:08:12 AM

Bossy573

Posts: 363
Joined: 3/25/2005
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline

GGWAW is really a different game from CEAW. GGWAW is like Risk on super-steroids. CEAW has an operational aspect that Grigsby's game does not have.

_____________________________

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 8

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/30/2007 5:50:32 AM

YohanTM2

Posts: 1143
Joined: 10/7/2002
From: Toronto
Status: offline

They also do not spend the hours to find the key flaws like simple things like the USA can be delayed entering the war due to random entry versus an entry system based on cause and effect like the Germans invading Holland and Belgium in 1939. In most serious WWII games the USA would take a rather dim view of this but in CEAW the USA could care less and could even be delayed entering the war.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Vypuero

I think the article misses some key elements of tactical battle and strategy that I have only found in commander:

1)� At first glance, it appears not so many unit types, what they dont mention is how tech makes the basic units exceptionally variable in function
2)� Manpower - few games model this at all, and few do it well
3)� Tactics - Lines of battle and supply rules work exceptionally well even though they seem very simple
4)� Battle fatigue - effectiveness models this well

That any many more subtleties these reviews often miss because they dont spend the hours of play to find them.

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 9

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 10/30/2007 9:59:34 AM

KarlXII

Posts: 259
Joined: 8/21/2005
From: Stockholm
Status: offline

Thanks for all the answers. It seems to be my kind of game even though I like more advanced wargames. The most important thing is the gameplay value after all. Games like "Uncommon Valour" etc might be very detailed and advanced but are not very easily enjoyable unless you plough hundreds of hours into them and who has that kind of time nowadays :-)

But to get to the bottom. For us players who mainly play single games the AI is perhaps the most important single factor in considering a strategy game. It seems to be pretty decent in this game and I hope further patches will strengthen it further.

(in reply to KarlXII)

Post #: 10

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 11/8/2007 9:55:56 PM

darthsmaul

Posts: 93
Joined: 12/9/2006
Status: offline

I like SC2, then Ceaw, the GGAWAW, although I found the last one very abstract and not easy for me to rap my mind around it completely

SC2 and Ceaw are pretty close to me, I dont like no replay in Ceaw and it seems in my first PBEM against IG he seems to be able to produce way more in his game he showed me as allies as I have against him and Im light on the tech so anywa just my humble opinion

Steve

(in reply to KarlXII)

Post #: 11

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 11/8/2007 11:48:39 PM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

How is it a "Key Flaw" Yohan? First of all, it is not likely that the US would care much if Germany invades in 1940 vs 1939, what is the difference? Or, perhaps you meant the allies invading? I think there are enough negatives to that already. The extra points - 3 for each country - plus the PP and manpower not lost in having to invade them, can be worth a lot already. If you invade Belgium as the allies, I will gain 1940-45 = 5 years x 18 turns = 270 PP for that.

So, neither is a serious flaw. Nor is it accurate to say that "the US could be delayed" because the random entry is random, and not connected to events in Belgium and Netherlands. This can also be deleted if you wish (the random element).

(in reply to darthsmaul)

Post #: 12

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 11/11/2007 8:11:16 PM

Irish Guards

Posts: 143
Joined: 8/13/2004
Status: offline

How is it a "Key Flaw" Yohan? First of all, it is not likely that the US would care much if Germany invades in 1940 vs 1939, what is the difference?

This comment is also the load ....

See above ...

Ahhhh ... hmmmm ... Why .. lets see ...

Maybe because the appeasement strategy by The Allies ..... At least the Allies that didnt get swallowed up by Germany in 1938 - 1939 .... Was not about to stop German aggression .....

Even though Germany had signed an accord saying they wouldnt attack certain countries for a number of years ... yeah right ... lmao
This is the Heart of the arguement ..
The Allies figured this out a wee bit late .... Seems Vp still hasnt figured this out ...

Let's look at the situation when France was being conquered ... Roosevelt attempted to intervene with Italy .. declaring that Italy should not DoW France .. He was quite angry and said so ...
This comes under political in a Grand Strategy game ... To say the least .. if this is not included .. Then I would have to say this is not really strategic in actual terms ...

An excellent system is allready a huge feature of WiF .. But then not many novice Wargamers have played this excellent game ... And also those who have played don't really understand the serious implications ... Once again its a balance issue ..

Nor is it accurate to say that "the US could be delayed" because the random entry is random, and not connected to events in Belgium and Netherlands. This can also be deleted if you wish (the random element).

I believe that what Yohan is trying to say is that its imperative they are connected ... And Vp's belief that " what's the diff is actually a hilarious comment " .. What a riot .. and also an understatement of what the actual " flaws are " ....

No big deal eh ... lmao ...
Skews the balance ... But as Vp says .. "whats the difference" ... lol ...

I think it would be a very wise choice for all who are developing a WW2 based game to actually play the Best WW2 game on the planet .. Board game .. that is ...

Might give them some insight ..

IrishDragoonGuards

(in reply to Vypuero)

Post #: 13

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 11/12/2007 4:03:23 AM

Vypuero

Posts: 232
Joined: 4/7/2007
From: Philadelphia, PA USA
Status: offline

I could respond if I understood what the hell you said.

(in reply to Irish Guards)

Post #: 14

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 1/16/2008 11:51:44 PM

Trigati

Posts: 8
Joined: 1/12/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bossy573

GGWAW is really a different game from CEAW. GGWAW is like Risk on super-steroids. CEAW has an operational aspect that Grigsby's game does not have.

I'd more likely compare GGWaW to 'Axis & Allies' on super steroids, as it has differentiation in units, production, and other features of A&A, just *much* more of them. (It's really what A&A should be.)

And, yes. Completely different feel than CEaW.

(in reply to Bossy573)

Post #: 15

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 3/25/2008 1:15:59 AM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

One thing you guys seem to be forgetting here is that first of all, unlike other games, the US is an almost non factor in this game, rather the US has much more appropriately the "arsenal of democracy" role in this game. Sure it sends some token units for the British once it's in, but the income is quite meager compared to other games. The "arsenal of democracy" comes, of course, by the huge amount of supplies that make it into England and partularly murmansk later in the game. It is all very abstract as far as that goes, but it is a huge part of the game and there are more than enough ships to combat the uboat problem in the north atlantic. For me, personally, I just buy a ton of uboats and get all the experience from knocking off supples, and if I should happen to lose one, then I try and build another. It only takes 3 turns I think, maybe 4, where a destroyer, BB or Carrier takes 6.

(in reply to Trigati)

Post #: 16

RE: Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ? - 3/25/2008 1:31:25 AM

panzers

Posts: 635
Joined: 5/19/2006
From: Detroit Mi, USA
Status: offline

I downloaded it, but it doesn't say what the modifications are. Can someone show me how to find that out?

(in reply to panzers)

Post #: 17

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Commander - Europe at War Gold >> Ceaw vs Strategic Command/Gary Grigsbys World at War ?

Page: [1]