In 2-3 months, I should have my Matrix 50-60% discount and I was looking to see if there is anything I should pick up.
I was thinking of Strategic Command. (I have never purchased any of the titles. I have downloaded the manuals and have to make time to read one.) Friends have suggested just buying the bundle. I would either get the bundle or: WWI, WWII, WWII-Europe.
About my grand strategy gaming background:
WITW & WITE-2: I love these two titles by Gary Grigsby for their superb modeling and high quality UI.
HOI4: I tried it two years ago with all DLC at the time. I disliked it for its miserable modeling, exploits, weak AI, etc... I don't play it.
Panther Games: I was a member of the team. And although the scale is not as large, I loved the continuous play and the use of intelligent agents.
AGEOD (before acquisition by PDS and Slitherine): I was member of the team. I like the WEGO AGE engine in AJE, CW1, and CW2; I will probably pick up EAW.
---
My questions:
(1) How does the current Strategic Command compare to WITW/WITE-2 and HOI4 in terms of play and UI? I want something well modeled with a good UI, and not a fantasy game with exploits and a weak AI. I know this engine is less detailed than GG titles.
(2) Is the bundle "classic" titles worth owning or just the newer ones? Would I find myself playing them?
(3) How is the replay value of these titles (WWI, WWII, WWII-Europe)? I am thinking of SP and GC mainly.
(4) If I want to explore mods for the series which installation is better? Steam key or download from Matrix? Is there Steam Workshop support with most mods on the Workshop?
(5) Anything else you think I should know about this series?
Thank you for your time.
A few pre-purchase questions?
A few pre-purchase questions?
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
-
Platoonist
- Posts: 2396
- Joined: Sun May 11, 2003 4:53 am
- Location: Kila Hana
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
Well, Strategic Command games don't model every unit down to the individual tanks, squads and office equipment like most Grigsby titles. But, then I often desire a break from that level of detail. However, on the other hand it doesn't allow you to conquer the world as Paraguay or Bulgaria or mold Canada into a totalitarian police state as in Hearts of Sandboxes. It's just straightforward WW I or WWII as one or several of the major participants. One of its strongest points is it has a good introductory tutorial and learning the basics is done pretty fast.
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
1. SC is simpler, I prefer it to WITW / WITE / HOI4 (they have too many units for my taste). Gameplay + UI are smooth
2. The classic ones were excellent, although I only play the newer ones now. That said I do know people who play the older ones (the classics have slightly smaller maps).
3. Great, I routinely play for a while, play something else for a while, then return to SC
4. Don't know, I haven't tried them
5. AI is really good for a game of this type.
Also the most recent version looks at the American Civil War (plus there is a DLC [War in the Americas] which looks at other less well known conflicts from the period, which all play out quite differently). This is well worth getting, even if WW2 is your
usual game setting
2. The classic ones were excellent, although I only play the newer ones now. That said I do know people who play the older ones (the classics have slightly smaller maps).
3. Great, I routinely play for a while, play something else for a while, then return to SC
4. Don't know, I haven't tried them
5. AI is really good for a game of this type.
Also the most recent version looks at the American Civil War (plus there is a DLC [War in the Americas] which looks at other less well known conflicts from the period, which all play out quite differently). This is well worth getting, even if WW2 is your
usual game setting
-
Willard
- Posts: 139
- Joined: Sat Feb 07, 2004 8:42 pm
- Location: Up the Nung river past Do Lung bridge...
- Contact:
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
MarkShot -
Long time / no chat! Been a while from the Panther forums and HTTR and COTA days. I hope all is well with you.
To follow-up on your questions, I had the original Strategic Command and then didn't play the intermediary games. I picked up SC WWI, WWII - Europe, and WWII - World at War bundle and it was worth every dollar!
From my perspective, this is grand strategy / high operational hex-turn based game. It is an easy game to learn after a few quick games, but difficult to master. The AI is solid but IMO it is a very fun game that excels as a PBEM game.
The level of micromanagement is no where near WITW or WITE.
Unit levels are at the army and corps levels, with some modeling of smaller units.
There is a level of abstraction that must be accepted given the scale.
The UI is pretty intuitive, again not hyper detailed but sufficient for the game.
Research and resources are again, a bit abstracted and high level.
The core currency are MPPs which are an amalgamation of manpower, resources and industry.
MPPSs are used to build, research, upgrade, reinforce, and transport units.
Logistics are important for both sides, although with slightly different focus for the differing sides.
The core game is very solid and there are some graphics/gameplay modes that provide good enhancements.
As for gameplay comparability...
HOI series - There is not much overlap here. Different scale, focus, gameplay type. I *tried* to like HOI's gameplay style but between Paradox's penchant for releasing unfinished games where people play for the privilege of beta testing or the their overreliance on fan boi feedback, it just wasn't for me.
Panther - Scale is completely different and no pausible/realtime gameplay.
AGEOD - So I have AGEOD's World War 1 gold and SC-WWI plays very similarly to the AGEOD version in scale, units, etc. However AGEOD's completely abstract combat system was something I could never understand or get into. Same with their first CW game.
WITW/WITE - Probably the closest comparison, but again, the level of detail and scope are way higher in the SC series. With WITW/WITE you can get overwhelmed with an enormous amount of detail / modeling - i.e. tracking losses down to tanks, planes, soldiers, - that can really bog down a turn if not enough time and attention are devoted. You dont have that with SC but you then have to accept the level of abstraction that comes from gameplay.
---------------
Overall, SC is a really good series and excels as a high performing "beer and pretzels" game. You can provide as much or as little attention/micromanagement without having to spend several hours per turn. The game play is somewhat a hybrid in style and scope between the old Clash of Steel w/ GG's original War in Russia. If you are looking for the level of detail and unit granularity as in WITW/WITE, than this is probably not the game. But if you are looking for a very solid grand strategy/high level operational game, than this is a good fit.
Now, a couple of quibbles before I go...
I like the map scale in SC - WWI and War in Europe. They both use the same map scope. SC - World at War uses a compressed map scale compared to the former and unit density is lower. *IF* they could ever use the world map at the scale of WWI and WIE, the World at War game would be awesome.
I am generally ok with how production is handled, but I would prefer that MPPs be broken out into 3 categories - MPPs (to simulate industrial strength); manpower; and oil. Right now, all three are grouped into MPPs. However my opinion is that the issue of manpower and oil are so essential to all 3 games, they deserve their own categories. That would drive a lot my strategic decisions on unit builds, types, numbers, etc. It would also "drive" players, especially the Axis and CP, on obtaining certain resources / geographic locations.
Finally, combat strength and research levels/upgrades take a bit getting used to. Units have strength points from 1-10. Additionally they have morale, experience, and readiness factors (that can be influenced by tech, HQ units, research, upgrades, and battlefield experience levels at the local and national levels). Full strength units are at 10 and can be increased by 1 pt to 11 + (queue Spinal Tap), based upon the number of experience they have. Additionally units can be upgraded - so for example tanks research is 1-5, and you can upgrade your tanks upto level 5. Again, their is a level of abstraction that must be accepted as level 1 represents the original generation of tanks on the battlefield and level 5 represents the most "modern" at the end of the war.
I hope the above helps and PM if you want to discuss further offline.
Regards,
WIllard
Long time / no chat! Been a while from the Panther forums and HTTR and COTA days. I hope all is well with you.
To follow-up on your questions, I had the original Strategic Command and then didn't play the intermediary games. I picked up SC WWI, WWII - Europe, and WWII - World at War bundle and it was worth every dollar!
From my perspective, this is grand strategy / high operational hex-turn based game. It is an easy game to learn after a few quick games, but difficult to master. The AI is solid but IMO it is a very fun game that excels as a PBEM game.
The level of micromanagement is no where near WITW or WITE.
Unit levels are at the army and corps levels, with some modeling of smaller units.
There is a level of abstraction that must be accepted given the scale.
The UI is pretty intuitive, again not hyper detailed but sufficient for the game.
Research and resources are again, a bit abstracted and high level.
The core currency are MPPs which are an amalgamation of manpower, resources and industry.
MPPSs are used to build, research, upgrade, reinforce, and transport units.
Logistics are important for both sides, although with slightly different focus for the differing sides.
The core game is very solid and there are some graphics/gameplay modes that provide good enhancements.
As for gameplay comparability...
HOI series - There is not much overlap here. Different scale, focus, gameplay type. I *tried* to like HOI's gameplay style but between Paradox's penchant for releasing unfinished games where people play for the privilege of beta testing or the their overreliance on fan boi feedback, it just wasn't for me.
Panther - Scale is completely different and no pausible/realtime gameplay.
AGEOD - So I have AGEOD's World War 1 gold and SC-WWI plays very similarly to the AGEOD version in scale, units, etc. However AGEOD's completely abstract combat system was something I could never understand or get into. Same with their first CW game.
WITW/WITE - Probably the closest comparison, but again, the level of detail and scope are way higher in the SC series. With WITW/WITE you can get overwhelmed with an enormous amount of detail / modeling - i.e. tracking losses down to tanks, planes, soldiers, - that can really bog down a turn if not enough time and attention are devoted. You dont have that with SC but you then have to accept the level of abstraction that comes from gameplay.
---------------
Overall, SC is a really good series and excels as a high performing "beer and pretzels" game. You can provide as much or as little attention/micromanagement without having to spend several hours per turn. The game play is somewhat a hybrid in style and scope between the old Clash of Steel w/ GG's original War in Russia. If you are looking for the level of detail and unit granularity as in WITW/WITE, than this is probably not the game. But if you are looking for a very solid grand strategy/high level operational game, than this is a good fit.
Now, a couple of quibbles before I go...
I like the map scale in SC - WWI and War in Europe. They both use the same map scope. SC - World at War uses a compressed map scale compared to the former and unit density is lower. *IF* they could ever use the world map at the scale of WWI and WIE, the World at War game would be awesome.
I am generally ok with how production is handled, but I would prefer that MPPs be broken out into 3 categories - MPPs (to simulate industrial strength); manpower; and oil. Right now, all three are grouped into MPPs. However my opinion is that the issue of manpower and oil are so essential to all 3 games, they deserve their own categories. That would drive a lot my strategic decisions on unit builds, types, numbers, etc. It would also "drive" players, especially the Axis and CP, on obtaining certain resources / geographic locations.
Finally, combat strength and research levels/upgrades take a bit getting used to. Units have strength points from 1-10. Additionally they have morale, experience, and readiness factors (that can be influenced by tech, HQ units, research, upgrades, and battlefield experience levels at the local and national levels). Full strength units are at 10 and can be increased by 1 pt to 11 + (queue Spinal Tap), based upon the number of experience they have. Additionally units can be upgraded - so for example tanks research is 1-5, and you can upgrade your tanks upto level 5. Again, their is a level of abstraction that must be accepted as level 1 represents the original generation of tanks on the battlefield and level 5 represents the most "modern" at the end of the war.
I hope the above helps and PM if you want to discuss further offline.
Regards,
WIllard
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
Thanks very much. I get my 50% coupon in June, and I plan to pick up a whole mess of titles in June. Back around the Winter sale I might have gotten these for a little less on Steam. But I have a few issues with Steam:
* They may some day turn off my WIN10 like what is happening WIN7.
* Depending on Geo-Politics, I could see Steam being blocked. (an installer and key seems a better way to go)
* They may some day turn off my WIN10 like what is happening WIN7.
* Depending on Geo-Politics, I could see Steam being blocked. (an installer and key seems a better way to go)
- 20230429 220448.jpg (218.44 KiB) Viewed 621 times
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
The key to the SC games is Multiplayer. If you play the AI enough you will regularly defeat it. People, on the other hand, play much better and makes the game not only harder but also more fun and replayable.MarkShot wrote: ↑Sun Mar 12, 2023 3:52 am In 2-3 months, I should have my Matrix 50-60% discount and I was looking to see if there is anything I should pick up.
I was thinking of Strategic Command. (I have never purchased any of the titles. I have downloaded the manuals and have to make time to read one.) Friends have suggested just buying the bundle. I would either get the bundle or: WWI, WWII, WWII-Europe.
About my grand strategy gaming background:
WITW & WITE-2: I love these two titles by Gary Grigsby for their superb modeling and high quality UI.
HOI4: I tried it two years ago with all DLC at the time. I disliked it for its miserable modeling, exploits, weak AI, etc... I don't play it.
Panther Games: I was a member of the team. And although the scale is not as large, I loved the continuous play and the use of intelligent agents.
AGEOD (before acquisition by PDS and Slitherine): I was member of the team. I like the WEGO AGE engine in AJE, CW1, and CW2; I will probably pick up EAW.
---
My questions:
(1) How does the current Strategic Command compare to WITW/WITE-2 and HOI4 in terms of play and UI? I want something well modeled with a good UI, and not a fantasy game with exploits and a weak AI. I know this engine is less detailed than GG titles.
(2) Is the bundle "classic" titles worth owning or just the newer ones? Would I find myself playing them?
(3) How is the replay value of these titles (WWI, WWII, WWII-Europe)? I am thinking of SP and GC mainly.
(4) If I want to explore mods for the series which installation is better? Steam key or download from Matrix? Is there Steam Workshop support with most mods on the Workshop?
(5) Anything else you think I should know about this series?
Thank you for your time.
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
I personally would avoid the World SC game, especially in multiplayer. At least not without a LOT of house rules.
I had the Axis player in my MP game invade Panama with Japan in 1944 with two Japanese corps, which they conquered (I quit the game at this point as this was so far out or reality I could not keep playing). While the AI would not do this, the game allows this nonsense because:
- There is no long range automatic scouting available in the game. So unless you have a massive picket line across the Pacific or manually send out planes EVERY turn, it is really easy to be surprised by very unrealistic moves. Like invading Panama in 1944.
- No lack of fuel for anyone. Which really can mess up the Pacific theater. I.E. ships can stay at sea for up to 10 turns without refueling. Although their effectiveness is reduced after 5 turns. But if all you are doing is transporting troops, then you get the full 10 turns with no issues. Which is how Japan got to Panama.
- All ships just automatically refuel back to the full 10 turns just by moving to a friendly port. No production, resources, etc. are needed. So Japan especially is allowed unrealistic movement of their entire navy.
- I typically completely ignore the entire sub war. I have found it is not worth the trouble on either side to pay the cost involved for defense or offense. This is in both SC games.
Hope this helps.
I had the Axis player in my MP game invade Panama with Japan in 1944 with two Japanese corps, which they conquered (I quit the game at this point as this was so far out or reality I could not keep playing). While the AI would not do this, the game allows this nonsense because:
- There is no long range automatic scouting available in the game. So unless you have a massive picket line across the Pacific or manually send out planes EVERY turn, it is really easy to be surprised by very unrealistic moves. Like invading Panama in 1944.
- No lack of fuel for anyone. Which really can mess up the Pacific theater. I.E. ships can stay at sea for up to 10 turns without refueling. Although their effectiveness is reduced after 5 turns. But if all you are doing is transporting troops, then you get the full 10 turns with no issues. Which is how Japan got to Panama.
- All ships just automatically refuel back to the full 10 turns just by moving to a friendly port. No production, resources, etc. are needed. So Japan especially is allowed unrealistic movement of their entire navy.
- I typically completely ignore the entire sub war. I have found it is not worth the trouble on either side to pay the cost involved for defense or offense. This is in both SC games.
Hope this helps.
Re: A few pre-purchase questions?
Well, there have been a mix of opinions. Which is good.
Part of the reason I am buying bundles is the self contained nature of installer and key. Between Steam (Google Chromium turning off support for WIN7; and WIN7/games run fine) and sanctions (one day you can buy a Big Mac and the next you cannot). I want a library that is independent of outside connections to play.
Call it "safe gaming" like "safe sex".
Part of the reason I am buying bundles is the self contained nature of installer and key. Between Steam (Google Chromium turning off support for WIN7; and WIN7/games run fine) and sanctions (one day you can buy a Big Mac and the next you cannot). I want a library that is independent of outside connections to play.
Call it "safe gaming" like "safe sex".
2021 - Resigned in writing as a 20+ year Matrix Beta and never looked back ...