What`s the difference to other games? (specially SC2)

[ferrisb]

I don`t want to criticize (or make "advertismet" for SC2), this is a real question!

Features
?· Huge hex based campaign map covering the USA to the west, Africa to the south, Scandinavia to the north and the Ural??™s to the east.
?· 6 epic scenarios including the operation Barbarossa, DDay and the Grand Campaign
?· Research over 50 inventions from 5 different technology areas
?· 12 different unit types including Light Tanks, Heavy Tanks, Destroyers and Motorised Corps, each with their own strengths and weaknesses.
?· Recruit and attach Historical Commanders to your units.
?· Detailed and realistic combat that models supply, morale, terrain, leadership, equipment, training, strategic weapons and fog of war.
?· Easy to learn, hard to master game play that is the cornerstone of Slitherine game design.
?· Multiplayer via e-mail, hotseat, Internet and including optional timed turns and 7 difficulty settings.
?· Use of Osprey publishing artwork in game, a leading publisher of military history books.
?· Easily moddable script files that allow players to alter many aspects of gameplay including research, unit stats, terrain effects and many more.

There`s nothing that Strategic Command 2 (the best turn-based WW game I konw so far) has not - so what`s BETTER in C-EaW?
- Will there be a better naval warfare (something wich isn`t that good at SC2)
- Will there be a possibilty to split the sides (i.e. human playing USA/GB & AI playing Russia)
- Will there be a "full editor" (somthing SC2 has) - or will it just be possible to tweak some aspects?

I hope this post won`t get deleteted, because I compare it to SC2 - I??ve heard of this game in the SC2 forum (and there the posts weren`t deleted btw).
So please guys - let there be some competition (and try to convince me that you are making a better game because of ...)

Frank

PS: I??ve seen a lot of SC2-players around here (jjr, s-o, vveedd, ...) so maybe one of you can tell me what you expect to be better?

[joe98]

SC2 does not have hexes. That destroys SC2 for me.

[IainMcNeil]

There is no problem with your post so don't worry about it getting deleted Generally we ask that discussion about other games go in the off topic general discussion section and we would usually move them there.

In this case though I don't mind leaving it.

Not being that familiar with SC2 it's hard to tell you exactly what the differences are, all we can do it tell you what Commander does, and though it probably sounds quite similar on paper, I think the differences are probably in the detail. One of our strengths is in user interface design and general presentation which is often sorely missing in other wargames. We have spent countless hours working out the best ways to present information to the player and how they interact with the game. Another is game balance & design. Although we will have a multiplayer game, we tend to lead the design with the single player version as most people play single player, then make adaptions as necessary for multiplayer. Although a vocal minority will disagree and say single player is not important, for the game to succeed it needs to sell to 10 times as many people interested in solo play as multiplay. However the vocal multplayer minority help in spreading the word to the solo play guys, so both aspects are important for successs.

One of the best ways to find out would be to sign up for the beta test and judge for yourself - though you would be held under a non disclosure agreements so would not be able to dicuss it with non-beta testers!

[vveedd]

Read post called "I am disappointment already". I have asked similar question and got lots of replies.

[ferrisb]

@joe98
That`s ok for me - since it`s YOU that is missing a great game

@iainmcneil
Thanks for not deleting this one.
I`ve signed up for the beta-test - hope I`ll be part of it
While reaging through the interview with Johan (something I should have done before) I found something:
- Built in to all the calculations are random factors (that`s something that isn`t solved very good in SC2)
- Difficulty levels also apply to multiplayer games, which means you can give your beginner friend a nice handicap (great idea - so you can even play beginners without getting too bored)
- Every unit has a shock rating & a damage rating (will have to see how it works out in the game)

BTW: I really hope that this one will get better than SC2, because in this case I`ll have a game to play for years

[firepowerjohan]

A good question requires a good answer

CEAW
- Resources (city, capital, mine, oil field, sea port, fortress) take splash damage when u attack them, so if you defend a city several turns taking heavy casualties then the city (and its prodution) will be in ruins.

- Logistic problems in the game are represented by oil, manpower and railroad capacity that means you can have your air/tanks unable to attack when lacking oil, you get worse quality recruits when having low manpower and you will have to pay extra production points if exceeding railroad capacity.

- Resources on the Map are individually set, meaning Alexandria is worth alot less than Hamburg and Hamburg is worth alot less than Moscow. Likewise, a Romanian Oil Field also means some production points but also (unlike cities) it will produce Oil points.

- UK Convoy units emerge on the map and head for the UK Ports (by automatic movement) , meaning German subs can sink or damage them to reduce their value once they arrive in Britain.

- Subs will have special invisibility meaning you cannot spot them other than when stepping on them or if the sub attacks something (convoy for instance)

- Strategic Bomber will attack enemy Resource despite enemy garrisoning it which means there is no way of protecting resources just by placing ground units on them, you need AA tech or air units to intercept.

- Unit Efficiency takes different penalties when using railroad, upgrading, deploy, moving, landing from transport which means you need to plan ahead when organising offence and defence.

- Reparing and upgrading units are done in a special repair mode and upgrade mode (that you reach with just one mouse click) meaning to repair 10 units you do with just 11 mouse click (one for switching to repair mode). Reparing means getting the unit back to full strength and upgrade means getting it to the maximum held tech levels. They both cost some Production Points and upgrade also reduces the effectiveness of the unit largely!

- Units need to be upgraded to reach the new tech levels while newly built units ofcourse get the highest available level. The upgrade cost some cash and reduces the effectiveness for the unit alot. This creates 2 problems for the players. No.1 is that upgrading each single tech will be expensive so it is better waiting and make one big upgrade (since upgrade always cost the same for the same unit type). No.2 if you try to upgrade your entire front line at the same time, it will be weak and vulnerable to counter attack due to the effectiveness penalty (effectiveness regain though). Unless you gonna use the unit right away, might be better to leave it and then upgrade later on when you get more than one upgrade in one swoop. USSR will think twice before spending upgrade money on their cheap garrison units near polish border since the upgrade cost is a fixed cost + a fraction of the units price, meaning an upgrade for a garrison will be be a higher % of its value than when doing it for an expensive unit.

So, for instanbce using (4 PP+5% unit value) as upgrade cost means:
For instance roughly could the Garrison cost ~20 PP to buy and ~5 PP per upgrade
and a Carrier cost 100 PP to buy and 9 PP to upgrade

- There will be a Tutorial that will enable new players to easily learn the most basic actions.

- There is a attribute for units called survivability which reduces taken damage. Doubling the survivability means halving the damage taken. This opens up for technologies and units that are tough to kill. Tanks will get a large increase to survivability (simulating their increased armour) with tech levels.

- There is a special Anti-Tank Bonus attribute to units that are used when facing tanks, meaning an infantry with high AT Bonus will not benefit from it when attacking infantry. Actually, when using the AT Bonus instead of increasing the fire it reduces the enemy Tanks survivability.

- There are deploying limits of one unit per city surroundings (<=1 hex distance to city) per turn meaning you cannot place hordes of new units to block enemy advance.

- Research will be in 5 areas, where each area contain 3 technologies each, and each technoloy has levels. For instance does Air Research Area have "Dog Fight", "Tactical Bombing", "Strategic Operations" each with 5 levels. To add further twist to it, there is a research focus in each tech area that you can set to "Balanced" or switch it to any of the 3 technolgies. Research focus in for instance Dog Fight will give much higher progress in that tech and lower in the other 2. Techs also have different diffulty meaning some techs take much more time to get. There is a limitation to how many focus changes you can do determined by how many focus points you have left. Another twist is that when a technology reaches the max level it will still get research points that will be wasted! Meaning if you focus on Dog Fight and reach max level then any further research in Dog Fight will be wasted Research which puts abit of long term penalty for massing a single tech. you can ofcourse reduce the waste by shifting the focus away from Dog Fight.

- Research is semi-random which means unless you have loads of laboratories in a tech area you cannot advance in one turn, but you can still get lucky result and get a big boost to your research, for instance your advance in a tech could be (turn for turn), 5%...10%...15%...45%. You notice the jump from 15->45, thats the semi-randomness which will make it impossible to predict exactly when you get the next advance. Since you always get a certain minimum progress per laboratory, you can know the maximum time it will take (with minimum luck).

- Commanders are unit attachments so are always deployed into an existing unit, meaning you can for instance deploy Rommel in your favourite tank. Beware if your unit gets destroyed or retreats, because the Commander will then be injured and out of action for a random long time. Commanders both have leadership atribute which will increase effectiveness of nearby units within range and some of them also have special combat bonuses (ground attack, ground defence) affecting only the unit they command.

- There is one shock phase and 2 fire phases in battles. Shock face is made prior to the fire phases with the attacker using its shock value on the defender reducing defender effectivness. After the fire phases, there is a retreat chance if the defender lost alot of effectiveness and has low effectiveness. This means combined arms work best by first softening up the defender using air units and then the main attack might easier cause it to retreat. Another fine thing is, retreat is dependant on terrain and impossible in some terrains (City, Capital, Fortress) so you cannot just use 8 air units on Stalingrad shocking the enemy and then just march in with a weak corps. Garrisoned units will fight to the last man.

- Phases exist in battles (shock, fire, fire) and there is a sequence of fire meaning in ground battles the defender shots first and damages the attacker then the attacker fires back. This actually means a high firepower will also help in defence since it will damage the attackers before they can fire back. Furthermore, this benefits combined arms where your air units first weaken enemy effectiveness so that your ground attack faces less enemy fire so can attack stronger.

Battle Sequences:
Normal battle : Attacker Shock , Defender Fire, Attacker fire
Navy vs Navy (=Naval Battle) : Attacker Fire, Defender Fire
air vs air (=Dog Fight) : (attacker+defender fire simultanesouly)
Strategic Battle : Defender fire, Attacker fire

- AI will use semi-random routes so for instance even if you know the position of a convoy in the north atlantic, you will never know if it will take a more northern or southern route.

[ferrisb]

@vveedd
Thanks, I`ll read through it!

@ firepowerjohan
Thanks a lot for this "good answer" (it really is one!)
Those difference sound very good, as they address some point I`m missing/disliking in SC2 (it may be the best so far, but it`s far away from being a "perfect game" - really hope your one comes more closer)

PS: "Convoy units on map " - MUCH better tahn just drawing lines on the map (SC2) - I hope the "convoy-fight" will include the "Norway Area" (PQ17)

[firepowerjohan]

In fact, convoys have different sizes (size=value it gives when unloading) regionally and individually which further adds to the complexity. North Atlantic convoys are much bigger than mid-, South Atlantic ones but the random variation means the biggest South Atlantic convoys could be bigger than the smallest ones in the north. So, you have alot of options both for Allies and for Axis where to focus your attacks/protection since it has to do with the balance of the naval war. A weak Axis sub fleet will be more wise to stick to the South Atlantic where there can be convoys sunk without even facing opposition.

This means when you have enough subs you want to go for the high profile areas but also risk more since there will be more enemy ships nearby. So, attacking west of Scotland, you will actually have a nicer and slightly shorter trip to Norway than France (to repair the subs) because the Royal Navy will most probably be to the south of you and it will be risky bumping into them (especially if they have built destroyers...).

[uxbridge]

Retreat rules in battles ...

Just the fact that "retreat" is possible at all is a major improvement in CEaW over SC2. In the latter the only way of defeating an enemy is to kill it. This tends to make frontlines sometimes rigid when neither side has a marked superiority. Hexes is another such huge improvement. Squares make frontlines sometimes very solid, sometimes full of holes ...

[fundin]

Cant play SC2 on MAcs, so thats why im lurking, id bet i'm not the only Mac guy waiting for a game like this

[joe98]

According to Apple, you can run all Windows applications on Apples.

[vveedd]

Firepowerjohan, this sounds awesome. Can??™t wait to play it. Also have one question:
How you will handle breakthroughs, overruns? My suggestion is that you take rule from Panzer General 2 ??“ when tank overrun unit it gain a few additional movement point and one additional fire point.

[firepowerjohan]

Firepowerjohan, this sounds awesome. Can??™t wait to play it. Also have one question:
How you will handle breakthroughs, overruns? My suggestion is that you take rule from Panzer General 2 ??“ when tank overrun unit it gain a few additional movement point and one additional fire point.

Since the map is so large, you can easily have some tanks behind the front line and send them in once you created a break in the enemy line. There is a exploitation move of one hex when a enemy retreats. If enemy retreat you can move into that hex.

Furthermore, I had forgot to mention. Retreats will only take placein Ground Unit vs Unit Ground battles though an air strike or naval bombardment can soften the enemy up reducing their effectiveness to make the later Ground attack force the enemy to retreat.

[fundin]

According to Apple, you can run all Windows applications on Apples.

You can, you need a newish mac and a copy of windows and the game. I dont want a new Mac, and i certainly don't want windows :0) But your right, i could buy a mac run windows and play SC2. Id rather wait for this though

[stalins_organ]

USSR will think twice before spending upgrade money on their cheap garrison units near polish border since an upgrade for a garrison cost the same as an upgrade for a tank or even a carrier, which ofcourse means garrisons are often not worth to upgrade unless the jump is large.

Um....not to put too fine a point on it, but how do you justify this??

I would have thought it pretty obvious that upgrading tanks or carries must be differeing in cost to upgradinggarrison units, since hte equipment isdifferent.

[James Taylor]

Thanks FPJ for that detailed description of the feature differences to SC2.

Now I'm wondering, since the amphib thread was a little inconclusive, have y'all firmed up those mechanics?

One other question about the reactiveness/intercept abilities of defensive air units comes to mind. In light of your comments of the combat sequence could you shed some of the previous detail into a simulated combat situation involving various units, like naval, air, artillery, tanks, infantry, etc.?

You know the combined arms approach and the possible effects the players might experience to their combat units, like reduction of characteristics, strength losses, and retreat and advance results.

[firepowerjohan]

Thanks FPJ for that detailed description of the feature differences to SC2.

Now I'm wondering, since the amphib thread was a little inconclusive, have y'all firmed up those mechanics?

One other question about the reactiveness/intercept abilities of defensive air units comes to mind. In light of your comments of the combat sequence could you shed some of the previous detail into a simulated combat situation involving various units, like naval, air, artillery, tanks, infantry, etc.?

You know the combined arms approach and the possible effects the players might experience to their combat units, like reduction of characteristics, strength losses, and retreat and advance results.

BATTLE EXAMPLE 1:
German Corps strength 10, effectiveness 70
French Corps strength 10, effectiveness 60 (lower than the German since Germany has higher Organisation tech level)

German Corps attack French Corps:
German Corps shock attack bringing the French corps down to 55 effectiveness
French Corps does Defensive fire damaging German Corps by 4 strength and the German also loses 12 effectiveness points (since taking casualties reduces effectiveness).

German Corps now at Strength 6, effect=58. French Corps was abit lucky though, with average luck the German Corps would have lost 2-3 strength, not 4.

German Corps now does offensive fire and at strength=6, effect=58 the German fire will be weakened alot. German Corps has average luck and manage to hit 2 strength point and 10 effectiveness point. French Corps is now strength=8, Effect=45. Since effect=45 is below the retreat threshold a small retreat change emerges. Lets say it did not retreat.

SUMMARY:
German corps had bad luck but it was also better if using a air unit before the ground attack. Lets show another example where Germany has combined arms.


BATTLE EXAMPLE 2:
German Units: Tactical Bomber, Tank, Corps
French Units: Corps (strength 10, effect 60)

i) German player chooses to attack with Tactical Bomber first.
Bomber shock attacks score a whopping 20 effectiveness on the french Corps. French corps then does defensive fire and bomber does offensive fire but neither of them hit (air has low ground attack and most ground units have low air attack values).

So, French Corps now at Strength 10, Effect. 40

ii) German Tank now attacks. Tanks has high shock value like the Tac Bomber. Tank does shock attack and manage to hit the French Corps for 15 effect points, meaning French Corps at Strength 10, Effect.25
French Corps does Def.Fire but with a low Effectiveness of 25, French Corps only manage to hit the German Tank for just 1 strength point and some effectiveness. Tank now does offensive, being almost fresh and that means it can get alot of power. Offensive fire from the Tank make French corps lose 3 strength and 15 effect. A retreat roll is made but the French corps has alot of luck and does not even retreat.

French Corps at Strength 7 and effect 10.

iii)
German Corps now attack, misses its shock attack (infantry have low shock value) and now it is the French units defensive fire. French Corps has high strength but very low effectiveness, manages to hit German corps for just 1 strength point. German Corps finally does offensive fire, hit the French corps which loses 3 strength and 10 effectiveness. French Corps now at Strength 4 and retreats to one adjacent hex (away from enemy units if it can). The strength loss did not cause the retreat, but instead the Effectiveness at 0 made the chance very high. French Corps is completely demoralised and it will take 3-4 turns before it is back in decent shape.

The unit that forced the reteat (German Corps) can now move an extra free hex i.e into the the abandoned hex, it is optional though but has to be decided right away.

[vveedd]

USSR will think twice before spending upgrade money on their cheap garrison units near polish border since an upgrade for a garrison cost the same as an upgrade for a tank or even a carrier, which ofcourse means garrisons are often not worth to upgrade unless the jump is large.

Um....not to put too fine a point on it, but how do you justify this??

I would have thought it pretty obvious that upgrading tanks or carries must be differeing in cost to upgradinggarrison units, since hte equipment isdifferent.

I am asking same question....

[firepowerjohan]

USSR will think twice before spending upgrade money on their cheap garrison units near polish border since an upgrade for a garrison cost the same as an upgrade for a tank or even a carrier, which ofcourse means garrisons are often not worth to upgrade unless the jump is large.

Um....not to put too fine a point on it, but how do you justify this??

I would have thought it pretty obvious that upgrading tanks or carries must be differeing in cost to upgradinggarrison units, since hte equipment isdifferent.

I am asking same question....

Currently, these are the prices used in game:

Garrison 20 Production points
Corps 40 Production Points
Tank 90 Production Points

Upgrading cost 5 Production Points. Since penalty for upgrading is both a large efficiency loss and some PP, all the units near front line is gonna have to decide when to upgrade, the decision is not always obvious.

But, since the cost is relatively large upgrading cheap infantry units, means you gonna have more problem upgrading them which further imposes a problm fighting enemies that get newer tanks. Say, even if you get good Anti Tank technology, when are you going to upgrade because it will cost you alot even say you will beat the enemy tanks.

This could also work well since Infantry upgrades are very powerful. Getting infantry attack L1, means increase Ground Attack goes from 4->5 which is 25% more fire power to the bulk of your land forces!

Upgrading a tank might sound cheap at first view. But consider, upgrading several tanks at every occasion when there is a new upgrade will sum up to 100+ Production Points eventually meaning you could have bought an extra tank for all that cost.

But there is a good point to what you are saying so we will try for a hybrid system where there is a minimumFee+a percentage of the unit cost

[ferrisb]

"we will try for a hybrid system where there is a minimumFee+a percentage of the unit cost "

Sounds much better for me.
You could see the minimum fee as a kind of general deploying-costs while the % of the units cost is the equipment itself.