Question for Targul

[Yogi the Great]

Hi Targul,

You may be the best person to get an opinion from. Back at the start of this forum the question was asked if anyone could give a good comparison of the pros & cons of Commander and SC2. Now that you have a fair amount of experience in both games, how about giving it some thought and give us an answer?

Not just a which is best, although feel free to give your opinion on that as well. More of a strength, weakness, historical accuracy, AI etc run down.

Have to admit, the matrix forums are a bit friendlier, don't you think? [;)]

[targul]

That is a tough question but I will do my best to answer it for you.
 
SC2 has squares this game has hexes.  Hexes make the flow more even in movement and provides more detail on how far your air, ships and units can move. 
 
SC2 supply is weak compared to CEAW.  In this game it is obvious when you are out of supply it is the normal if you cant trace a line you have no supply.  SC2 again due to squares is much more difficult to determine.
 
SC2 has a better grasp of naval operations.  It includes the cruisers and identifies the ships by name this is significantly better.  But the convoy system is more intriguing in this game since it is not just place you sub on a line and you will do X amount of damage.
 
Carriers work much better in SC2 since they are seperate air and ship.  They work like a real carrier which is significantly better.  Carrier dont go around bombing inland targets since land based air would simply sink them.  Again not true in this game.
 
Battleships are also more reluctant to bombard in SC2 for the same reason the air will simply anniliate them.
 
This game lacks any amph ability.  The transport system is very substandard and the idea of sitting off at the landing point for 20 days is simply absurd.
 
The time is much better in SC2 it is variable and give you monthly in winter, biweekly in spring and fall and weekly in summer.  This makes for a much more accurate fighting schedule historically.
 
SC2 has weather on the entire map and it is based on the real weather patterns so again much better since CEAW lacks any weather in the west.
 
Vichy France exists as it did historical is SC2.  CEAW calls it Vichy but allows free deplyment within its borders by the Axis.
 
The Allies are a serious threat in the Africa.  This game they sit in one place until they are killed.
 
This games map is much larger which allows for more freedom of movement and tactical ideas.
 
Gameplay is much more historical in SC2 because of the weather constraints and map.
 
AI is better in Russia in this game then SC2 even though I am told that will no long be true after the expansion is released this month.
 
Both games the designers are active on the boards and appear to be listening.
 
The looting system in SC2 causes for ahistorical play and makes for very strange behavior of the players. 
 
I am not sure I covered all the difference difficult to think of them one by one. 
 
I have more fun playing this game then SC2 but the expansion excites me it sounds so well done.  But that is due to the squares but those really shouldnt be as much of a deteriant as I make them
 
Both games are excellant but this one is missing some critical items that SC2 has so I would give the edge to SC2 but only by a very little.  If you buy either one I think you will be happy.
 
 

[Hanal]

As a player of both games I find that Targul has given an excellent analysis of the two games.... I do want to add that SC2 does boast one of the best editors you will find and many interesting mods have been created...

[targul]

Thanks Falcon I dont mod but I did look at it and it was impressive.

[SMK-at-work]

not sure what his point is about carriers tho - they work exactly teh same in SC2 as they do in CEAW - they have range and can bombard inland if there's no air opposition.
 
both naval wars are inadequate - although SC2's convoy system is more accurate since convoys crossed the Atlantic in 10-14 days, not 3 months as they do in CEAW - however otehr naval movement is the same poor quality copy of land movement for both.
 
Both amphibious systems are silly - SC2 is a bit better in that you can unload straight away at a functioning port, or from amphib transport (which is good to have seperate), however consider Torch - allied forces sailed from the UK an landed in Nth Africa less than 10 days later - in SC@ it'll take you several turns because Amphibs have slow movement.  In CEAW you'll get there faster, but then have to wait a turn......neither is very clever.
 
CEAW has Oil and shock, which are much better than SC2, and I prefer the CEAW research system....although I don't know why only Mech infantry should benefit from artillery research!
 
 

[PDiFolco]

Well, already I felt that SC2 handling of naval warfare was crappy and the weakest aspect of game, now it seems that CEaW is even worse !! [:@]
They should have better left it purely abstracted ...CV fleet bombing ports and towns in mainland Europe is purely ridiculous (IRL it wasn't even done in the Pacific until USA totally controlled the air! )[:(]

[IainMcNeil]

I imagine the reason that both SC2 and CEAW take a similar approch is that to simulate land and naval warfare you need totally different systems. If you wanted to get both right you'd be doing as much work as 2 normal games, which obviously is too expensive for small teams like this. Land warfare is by far the most important part of a European Theatre game, so this is what leads and naval warfare gets shoe horned in to the land warefare system.
 
Abstracting it away may sound simple, but its a lot more work than doing it they way it works now.

[Yogi the Great]

Thanks Targul
 
Knew I could count on a good response from you.  I have SC2 (and SC1) and have followed those forums as well for a number of years now.  The decision is if I should ad this game as well.  I too prefer hexes, but needed to get a better feel for other aspects of the game and appreciate your help.  As you know there was a lively discussion on the BF forum after this game came out.

[Vypuero]

SMK - Corps do benefit from artillery research, its just that mech infantry get the bonus first.  Open the tech script and select all - paste it into excel - and you can view it.

[firepowerjohan]

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great
As you know there was a lively discussion on the BF forum after this game came out.

I saw that too and it is just tragic that ppl feel the need to start mud sling campaigns to get things their way, for whatever reason. Something I hope we will never see on this forum. I think it is great we have many WW2 games to choose from, some with more what-if focus, some with other scope, some with more diplomacy and some with more combat focus and there is no way that one game can satisfy every player so that is not our goal either [:)]

[PDiFolco]

About weather and variable time of turns in SC2, I'm not convinced at all : with 1 month turn in winter the movement rates of units are nowhere near reality- Imagine the Bismarck or Tirpitz not able to attain Bergen from Kiel in 1 month (she could have done some 15,000 miles in that time !) !  Plus it also applies to regions that not even have "real" winters, such as N Africa...
Same for production, having winter production 20% of summer prod is plain silly.
Eventually I prefer to have no seasons, just special rules for Russian Winter, in CEaW like in ol'3R, than SC2 seasonal turns.

[pzgndr]

I saw that too and it is just tragic that ppl feel the need to start mud sling campaigns to get things their way, for whatever reason. Something I hope we will never see on this forum. I think it is great we have many WW2 games to choose from, some with more what-if focus, some with other scope, some with more diplomacy and some with more combat focus and there is no way that one game can satisfy every player so that is not our goal either

I agree completely. Innovation is a great thing and we should all appreciate the variety in WWII grand strategy games we have. It's interesting to see what works well and what doesn't, but you can never really know until you try. That often requires early game design decisions that are difficult or impossible to change later.

[PDiFolco]

Another - maybe the last- thing which still makes me hesitate to get CEaW is "fixed War entries". I really don't like having Italy declare war in May'40 whatever happened to France, that can still experience phony war, or be near Berlin, or having been crunched since 3 months at that time !
Same for USSR  -and it's even more of a problem... GG WaW did model this pretty neatly with "war readiness thermometers"  that changed according to actions/situation, SC2 has scripts, here we only have same agendas again and again, seriously reducing strategic choices  ?
 
Any chance it could be changed/patched/modded ?

[targul]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

About weather and variable time of turns in SC2, I'm not convinced at all : with 1 month turn in winter the movement rates of units are nowhere near reality- Imagine the Bismarck or Tirpitz not able to attain Bergen from Kiel in 1 month (she could have done some 15,000 miles in that time !) !  Plus it also applies to regions that not even have "real" winters, such as N Africa...
Same for production, having winter production 20% of summer prod is plain silly.
Eventually I prefer to have no seasons, just special rules for Russian Winter, in CEaW like in ol'3R, than SC2 seasonal turns.

Well your example is incorrect. Sea movement is not effected by the weather other then bad seas which can damage you ship which adds realism.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: targul

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco

About weather and variable time of turns in SC2, I'm not convinced at all : with 1 month turn in winter the movement rates of units are nowhere near reality- Imagine the Bismarck or Tirpitz not able to attain Bergen from Kiel in 1 month (she could have done some 15,000 miles in that time !) ! Plus it also applies to regions that not even have "real" winters, such as N Africa...
Same for production, having winter production 20% of summer prod is plain silly.
Eventually I prefer to have no seasons, just special rules for Russian Winter, in CEaW like in ol'3R, than SC2 seasonal turns.

Well your example is incorrect. Sea movement is not effected by the weather other then bad seas which can damage you ship which adds realism.

I was not talking of weather effects per se, but the fact that *turn length* varies with season : in the game the movement rate of units are fixed - so my Tirpitz has 10 mp per turn- and in winter (ie Nov-Mar) turns are 1 month long, so effectively my Tirpitz become oar-operated and makes maybe 1000 km *a month* !!! [X(]
Same thing for my Afrika Korps, they get lazy at the only time temperature is bearable in Tunisia [8|]

[targul]

Well neither is correct of even close but most actions happen when the weather is good including ship combat so I find it much more historical for the overall map then the 20 day system. If they cut the days to 7 or 10 then I could agree but with the 20 day straight this system is less accurate overall IMO.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: targul

Well neither is correct of even close but most actions happen when the weather is good including ship combat so I find it much more historical for the overall map then the 20 day system. If they cut the days to 7 or 10 then I could agree but with the 20 day straight this system is less accurate overall IMO.

Dunno from where you get this false idea, WW2 was not in the middle ages, and battles occured in all seasons ! Sure there was winter difficulties in russia or for aircraft that limited effectiveness/speed, but saying winter were "calm" is just plain false.
Having *no* weather/season effect at all (except Russian winter) as in CEaW is not very good neither, I admit, but I eventually find it more reasonable.

[targul]

You may find it more reasonable but the reason there was no action in France, Belgium, Netherlands during the winter to 39-40 was it was simply impossible to do. Hitler attempted to attack and his General balked so he went to the front to motivate those generals but once he saw the situation at the front even Hitler knew a winter attack would doom them.

The Germans learned winter warfare in 41 in Russia which was why they were so capable of the Battle of the Bulge but even with there experience they were no match for the Allies and that offensive became only a ripple in history.

AFrica often times had problems rains, dust storms brought offensives to a grinding halt.

Moving up Italy was impossible in the winter as the Allies found. Between the horrible terrain and the mud roads real movement was just impossible.

Landing on DDay was delayed by weather and could have been cancelled had the weather not cleared. Even after the landing the Mulberry's they made for supply were almost destroyed by weather and brought the army to a halt while the Mulberry's were repaired.

Weather is probably one of the most significant events that change war patterns. In this game that doesnt exist and there is no randomness to it since it doesnt exist. So to simply ignore weather and other then in the East leaves the game lacking in a major arena of war.

[pzgndr]

I was not talking of weather effects per se, but the fact that *turn length* varies with season

This is true for the SC2 default game. There are other options available in the Editor for modders to use. For example, turns could be set to monthly (4 weeks), or 20 days like CEAW, or weekly (7 days) if you want. Turns can be alternating or simultaneous. Production can be normalized for those seasonal turns, meaning less relative production for the shorter summer turns and more for the longer winter turns. There is a lot of flexibility available which players can experiment with some more rather than just play the standard game all the time. Of course if you change the turn sequence, you need to also look at production, unit costs and unit action points for playability and balance. The comprehensive Editor is one of the best features of SC2, cuz if you don't like something in the default game then you can change it. Or you can create your own game with custom map, custom units, etc. [8D]

[Yogi the Great]

ORIGINAL: firepowerjohan

ORIGINAL: Yogi the Great
As you know there was a lively discussion on the BF forum after this game came out.

I saw that too and it is just tragic that ppl feel the need to start mud sling campaigns to get things their way, for whatever reason. Something I hope we will never see on this forum. I think it is great we have many WW2 games to choose from, some with more what-if focus, some with other scope, some with more diplomacy and some with more combat focus and there is no way that one game can satisfy every player so that is not our goal either [:)]

I agree, my reference on the first post "Have to admit, the matrix forums are a bit friendlier, don't you think? " was about that. This is a much nicer forum to participate in. The other forum has a habit of falling into mudslinging, political and religious debates on a regular basis.