comparsion of GGwaw to Strategic Command?

[pkpowers]

Anyone who owns both could please give me a rundown? I've also owned Advanced 3R and Clash of Steel.

[Grotius]

I've played and enjoyed all those games. I certainly think GGWaW is at least as good as any of them. Don't let the graphics fool you: this is a serious WW2 grand-strategy game. And GGWaW has a global focus missing from all three games you mentioned.

In fact, GGWaW is arguably more detailed than any of the three games you mentioned except A3R. GGWaW treats naval and air warfare in more detail than even that game, and in my view with much greater success. GGWaW also models research in a more interesting way than those games. GGWaW also puts supply directly on the map, to be moved by the player; that's unusual in games at this scale, and again I like it. OTOH, those games were all hex-based, and I do like hexes. Game by game:

Strategic Command: I liked SC, and I will certainly buy SC2. SC has a somewhat more nuanced political model than GGWaW: it's not certain when Russia or the US will go to war. SC also had hexes, though SC2 will instead have "tiles." SC also had incremental hits to unit health, as I recall; in GGWaW, a unit is either damaged (placed in the production pool) or destroyed. But SC didn't have nearly as interesting a production, research, or supply system. And SC models only the European theater. It always left me wishing I could circle Africa, or play Japan.

A3R: I love A3R, and I like its more detailed map. But its naval warfare system isn't as interesting as GGWaW's, IMHO. In WaW, U-Boats really matter; carriers actually function kinda like carriers; and research into ASW, flak and aircraft changes the flow of the naval game.

Clash of Steel: I actually played this one more than Strategic Command; I just fell in love with CoS. But it still models only the European theater, and its naval/air model was quite simple as I recall. Same with supply: it was just the usual wargame rule of tracing a line of hexes. In GGWaW, you actually move trucks of supply around, at least if you're playing with Advanced Supply, which is the best way to play IMHO.

[SeaMonkey]

Other than what Grotius has said, especially the political model, the two other major differences in SC and WaW, is SC has an editor and SC has leaders and a mechanism to personalize your side.

What do I mean by personalize. You can name your units and custom campaigns are easily set up. SC2 promises to have even greater flexibility with the editor, able to create maps, smaller or larger theaters and campaigns and battles from different eras. The scripting of events will allow all types of "what-If" scenarios, ala TOAW.

There are many similarities between the two, being they are both great environments for human to human interaction. The advance supply model that WaW exhibits is one of its advantages over SC, IMO, it adds an extra dimension without being cumbersome.

At this point, I would advise anyone to own both if their interest lies in this genre, both are outstanding values for the enhancement of life, and you can use Mastercard to pay for them.[;)]

[Espejo]

Well I think they are totally different games. There is totally different feeling to both games.

In SC I care for every unit and many campaigns are decided by tacticly moving right. You "really" fight to take a town or area. You have to build up defense lines and look for the breakthrough hexes. Still Sc has many flaws: The production system, the research system, playing the cookie cutter style that the axis has the economic advantage and only allied super carriers can save the day. Still I love Sc because you slowly build up and the game can go for hours before it is decided. I love the TCP/IP play. The AI is really weak in Sc you can forget it. The Interface is super simple. You can start to play right away, stil there is alot to know to play it right. Evwen if it seems sometimes that luck plays a big role I think in the end skill decides it is not for nothing that there is a bunch of really top players who rarely loose a game if ever.

In WAW you battle all over the world. The interface is not though easy to use. Many rules are more or less hidden.

Things I really like with WAW is the supply system, the wy the economics work, the map looks nice and covers the whole world and gives a real world war feeling. The production system for me is superior because you need resources, have to plan in advance with of your units to build and you can´t build everything anywhere. Another advantage is you have more different units to play with.
Weaknesses for me are the balance right now between some units and the importance of research. In SC you have to research but units never get obsolete. The catch up and luck in the SC research system lets you try different strategies as to high tech or simply let the other guy do the work and try to crush him with superior numbers. Units get much more expesnive in Sc with high tech. In WAW the cost of units stay the same, no catch up system you have to invest in research I think most players invest at least 1/3 of their production in research or even more. Falling behind in tech or not counter research means death. I personally think that research has been given to much importance even if there are really nice features as to research the differerent attributes of the unit. As torpedo attack, attack against land units, evasion etc. Still I don´t like it that unit cost stays the same for a Tiger Modell Year 2005 or the first tank invented ever.
Opposed to SC where you slowly build up your strengh, WAA moves along much faster a turn are three month. Units can move in one turn around the world under the right circumstances. Strong enemy forces can appear out of "nowhere" and breach your defenses. Combat feels less personal as in SC. Still WAW in total I think in WAW you have to think more and really plan your moves even tediuously studying and plan your attacks because you have to make the most out of every round. In SC you can throw some units in a direction an see what will happen. In WAW this will lead to a dissaster.

Sc will run on low end machines. It looks ugly unmodded. WAW looks really nice but my 2,6 GHZ , 512 MB Ram computer is already borderline. (I like to play in high resolution because in "low resoultion you can´t really see the difference between rough and normal terrain [:@]) WAW is PBEM only. I not really a fan of PBEM because I loose the feel of the flow of the game. Still here is WAW superior to SC. "Dice rolls are seeded before " you can easeir see if somebody reloads" and you can spend 30 min easily in one complicated move to plan your move. But still I am looking forward to the promised TCP/IP patch.

Both are for me very different approaches to strategic world war games. I think Sc is addictive when playing against humans but quite cheesey in many of its concepts. WAW si not as addictive for me yet but I think this is mostly because I don´t like to play against an AI which is quite good by the way. I hope the last weaknesses ot the AI will be ironed out with the next patches.

[pkpowers]

thanks for all of the replies

[5cats]

What about Hearts of Iron 2 ??
I downloaded a demo (HoI2), good lord! 3000 provinces, every single cruiser in the fleets, and played in REAL TIME!!
I looked at the tutorials and then deleted it [8|]
3Reich was a good boardgame, but glossed over so many things it wasn't funny. The AI in the computer game was "poor" to say the least. Also I've never been a fan of 1 x d6 results. (even in GGWaW) I'd prefer 2 x d6 for a more balanced, yet less predictable game.
World In Flames was a BIG boardgame, but I never played it (just watched a bit). It looks like it would be great as a computer game, but that's been "in developement" forever.