A new (or better) Clash of Steel?

[henri51]

Clash of Steel was one of the earliest and all-time best WW2 computer wargames in the days before computers could support huge wargames, but unless you are an old grognard, you mqy never have heard of it. This game sounds a bit like it, but it is hard to say since I have not found any AARs.

[blastpop]

That is what I was thinking. Clash was one of those watershed games that did a lot right and set the stage for future games. So I've been mulling over getting SWiE, but would like to see some replays as well.

Side note the games title is descriptive, but does little to add to the sizzle factor... Otoh "Panzers conquering Europe" would definitely be more of an attention grabber....

[ricodc]

Well it has a similar map to Clash of Steel. Been along time to remember if its better. Im sure one thing its quicker to play. No making tea waiting for next turn.
But I am playing on an OC hex core intel at moment, but still its faster. Looks good for PBEM as well.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: henri51

Clash of Steel was one of the earliest and all-time best WW2 computer wargames in the days before computers could support huge wargames, but unless you are an old grognard, you mqy never have heard of it. This game sounds a bit like it, but it is hard to say since I have not found any AARs.

I had Clash of Steel, and I recently bought this game...there's another thread where I went in to the similarities of the two games:

tm.asp?m=3172833

Basically, if you like Clash of Steel (I loved it), then you'll like Strategic War in Europe. Basically, it looks like an upgrade of the Clash of Steel...the same no stacking, same air system, similar abstracted naval system, same political system (political pressure points, etc.), same corps/army unit setup, etc.

Hope this helps.

[Hakmeister]

I still play Clash of Steel. This game has the potential to replace it, but there is a serious flaw in the design. Each nation moves and has combat on its own. As such, British and Canadian units cannot cooperate. It would make more sense if all nations of an alliance could move and have combat at the same time. As a result, this game is off my recommended list until this serious flaw is corrected. Add to it a poor AI, and I can only give it a 2 out of 4 stars. Correct the major flaw I have stated and the score would go up to 3.5 out of 4 stars. I could easily tolerate playing the game without the AI.

[doomtrader]

Hakmeister, Remember that troops are receving attack bonus every time there is an allied unit next to them.
Also payer can control all the countries on one side.

[PKH]

I also reacted to the fact that you can't do coordinated attacks with your allies, and not move them together. I tried 'clash of steel' after reading about it here, and I really like it. Imo, it's a works better that way, to have turns per alliance instead of per country. Each country still has it's own production. I also liked the concept of army groups which can provide supply.

[Hakmeister]

Doomtrader: Given the scale of the game, the use of multiple nationalities in a single attack represents participation rather than direct cooperation and coordination. It is very reasonable for multiple nationalities to be involved in a major offensive operation. As it is, Canadian units cannot participate in an attack with British units even though both were operating under the same command structure, historicall. That a small bonus is received from an adjacent allied unit is small consolation for the non-participation. Sorry, but while the mechanics of the game are very good, this one characteristic of the game detracts significantly from game play, in my opinion. If it were not for this one thing, this game would receive a strong recommendation from me.

[doomtrader]

Of course I do understood your point.
Bear in mind that the bonus gives (IIRC) 20% of the unit's strength, which is pretty lot if you consider that the unit is not taking any casaulties.