Page 2 of 3
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 12:55 pm
by syagrius
PDiFolco wrote:Don't get your point Stalins_organ...
WW1 war was pretty much like WW2 without airpower and very few, late war tanks. In CEAW terms everything could work the same : sturmtruppen, better trenches, gas, etc would be new "techs", planes will just be out (in WW2 also they were extensively used as recon), and ships were just the same without CVs (indeed some WW2 ships were already existing in WW1 !).
At a corps level arty should never gets its own units, it has always been incorporated in regiments and batteries at corps or divisional level.
The very different outcomes came from the lower mobility and firepower of attacking units, unable to make decisive breakthroughs, along with outdated strategy and tactics. I'm pretty sure it can be done in CEAW by just tweaking numbers.
I agree at 100% with you PDiFolco
Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:34 pm
by SMK-at-work
Let's start.......
the bulk of large ships in WW1 operated as FLEETS, not as squadrons...although there were some famous squadron sized actions - CEAW doesn't do this.
Storm/assault tactics shuold achieve different combat RESULTS - eg more recoils IMO - tech levels as per CEAW give you more causualties, which is not the same thing.
Very few late war tanks?? First us in 1916, 400 at Cambrai, Britain used 2350, France 4000.......you dont' know your WW1 all that well.....
Artillery was not fixed to Corps - it might have been attached for an offensive...then to another corps for another offensive. And one of hte classic things about artillery in WW1 is that it usualy could not keep up with an advance, so having artillery subsumed into corps level formations so it DOES keep up with them misses out that little problem.
Heavy artillery such as the huge siege guns to KO fortresses at Liege in 1914, and subsequent use of naval guns and similar massive ordonnance is NOT covered by anything in CEAW.
Planes just "out" - so you want WW1 without planes, tanks and siege guns?? Are you sure you're talking about the same WW1 as me??!!
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:57 am
by VonManteuffel
A lot of things that are not associated with WW1 were used even in 1914, like airplanes (for spotting as well as bombing).
I do agree that this engine could make a serviceable WW1 game.
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 8:48 am
by PDiFolco
Let's start again
Ok "very few late war tanks" wasn't correct, I should have written "much fewer (than in WW2) late war tanks". Tanks didn't achieve much before at least 1917. And they were used as inf support, not as armored spearheads. But anyway it doesn't make much difference, CEAW can model "slow tanks" as well...
Stosstruppen and so : CEAW hexes are some 50 km+ large, in the game "retreats" are rather routs ! I can't see why shock WW1 units would have different effect than WW2 ones.
Naval : at the level of abstraction of CEAW I don't see your point. CEAW doesn't model any coordinated army or fleet level action anyway...Big WW1 naval battles would be several naval units (BB and DD) battling together. Maybe a "Cruiser" unit could be added as well, because in WW1 the were more proeminent than WW2.
Planes : sure they can be left out, they had no real battle impacts except for recce, which isn't modelled. But we can have fighters units, they'll mostly battle each other out but will not have any impact on the ground war, so it seems rather pointless...
So in the end WW1 would be a mostly inf affair, with naval actions resembling WW2 Atlantic war, plus some action in the med, tanks appearing late and not that powerful, and non-critical air war .
Isn't that WW1 as it occured ? And where would CEAW engine get "wrong" ?
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:07 pm
by vypuero
It would just be boring, is all
Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 10:47 pm
by SMK-at-work
I reckon so too....you take out all the stuff that "makes" WW1 the end of the 19th century and all you have is a slow game of WW2.....if you wanna do WW1 then you need to capture the things that make WW1 what it was.
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:24 pm
by PDiFolco
stalins_organ wrote:I reckon so too....you take out all the stuff that "makes" WW1 the end of the 19th century and all you have is a slow game of WW2.....if you wanna do WW1 then you need to capture the things that make WW1 what it was.
And that is ?? What would you change/add that will make the game "more WW1" ? Really didn't get where you're going...
I've interpreted Vypuero's post as saying that a WW1 game would be boring whatever the engine, not boring due to CEAW engine. I've had a look at Guns of August AARs, it's a "dedicated" WW1 game and it looks as much boring as WW1 would be with CEAW
- It has more detailed C&C, recon and naval rules, but this could stand for WW2 as well...
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 7:03 pm
by syagrius
I guess we will have to wait for AGEOD Vainglory of Nations to see a good looking and playable WW I game. Guns of August looks awful and seems overly complicated.
Posted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:01 pm
by PDiFolco
syagrius wrote:I guess we will have to wait for AGEOD Vainglory of Nations to see a good looking and playable WW I game. Guns of August looks awful and seems overly complicated.
VGN will be more of a 19th grand strategy game than a dedicated WW1 wargame - but sure it'll be great ! (you can trust me on this, I'm an AGEOD partner...
).
I didn't try GoA, sure it isn't very sexy but it seems to have many things right as a WW1 wargame.
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 6:18 am
by SMK-at-work
GoA is miles ahead of anything CEAW could do for WW1 - it shows what CAN be done for tanks, assault training, gas, trenches, massed fleets, a damned exciting U-boat war, simple economics that give you a shell shortage in 1915, manpower, diplomacy, resources, trade and virtually everything else that makes WW1 what it was.
And with all that it's simpler than CEAW IMO. It will be around long after CEAW is no longer flavour of the month!!
Am I biased? Yep - I love the game. I beta tested both GOA and CEAW.
Posted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 4:16 pm
by vypuero
I read an after action report on GoA it sounded interesting. Does it have human vs human play?
Posted: Sun Sep 02, 2007 10:54 am
by SMK-at-work
Yep - but only hotseat of PBEM.
The AI isn't too bad either tho - the game is simple enough that it can have a challenging AI but once you get the hang of it the AI rapidly becomes a victim waiting to happen
Colonization and Powerplay in 18th and 19th century
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:37 am
by jonrock
WOuld strongly recommend a game on the colonalisation and powerply during the 18th and 19th century.
The benefits are:
- large number of players: England, France, Spain, Portugal and Holland
- strategic decision to trade with locals (e.g. japan and thailand) or to conquer and rule (e.g. South America and India)
- variety and wealth of natural resources (e.g. gold, spices and silk)
- enormous opportunity for research (e.g. faster and bigger ships, better and more powerful weapons, better utilisation of natural resources
- decide whether to raid resources (quick money) or build lasting colonies (more soldiers and resources)
- strategic decision to determine which colonies to take first
- decision whether to conquer colonies from enemies or attack the home country in europe
- ability to made treaties with other countries
- world view (with all continents)
Would be thrilled to collaborate with you on further details
Looking forward to hearing from you
Cheers
Jon
Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 1:34 pm
by syagrius
I doubt the engine of CEaW is suitable for a game like this, in particular in the diplomacy and reaserch fields. A WW I game however might be
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:08 pm
by syagrius
So when can we expect some news about where the Commander series will go?
Posted: Thu Oct 11, 2007 2:42 pm
by IainMcNeil
I think it will be a good few months before there is any news in that department. We're still working on the language versions and patches for CEAW at the moment.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 4:55 pm
by James Taylor
Achtung! Uhh...sorry, wrong language. What I meant to say was due to the imminent release of WaW it is paramount that this game engine be adapted to the PTO.
Here's the reasoning. The new features of SC are consistent with the evolution to the Pacific for the next release. Once that happens you will again find yourself behind the vaunted SC curve.
The Pacific provides for an equal playing field for CEaW vs SC and could catalize the needed notoriety for Johann's evolution to a leading edge game developer. HC will be immense competition, but let's face it, there are no other developers working in this realm currently.
Granted, there needs to be additional work continued on the present release in the form of patches, but don't lose sight of the main goal, parity. Emphasize the PTO now! SC WaW has some fantastic editing abilities and already Firepower is losing ground fast, not to mention what the SC natives will come up with once WaW gets into there artistic little fingers.
Sure, I've heard there is enough room for both, but with the other connotations like GGAWD, HOI, MWiF, Muzzy's Calm & Storm...etc
I really kind of doubt it. Johann, do not dither, this is opportunity knocking.....always fleeting at best.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 6:09 pm
by firepowerjohan
seamonkey wrote:Achtung! Uhh...sorry, wrong language. What I meant to say was due to the imminent release of WaW it is paramount that this game engine be adapted to the PTO.
Here's the reasoning. The new features of SC are consistent with the evolution to the Pacific for the next release. Once that happens you will again find yourself behind the vaunted SC curve.
The Pacific provides for an equal playing field for CEaW vs SC and could catalize the needed notoriety for Johann's evolution to a leading edge game developer. HC will be immense competition, but let's face it, there are no other developers working in this realm currently.
Granted, there needs to be additional work continued on the present release in the form of patches, but don't lose sight of the main goal, parity. Emphasize the PTO now! SC WaW has some fantastic editing abilities and already Firepower is losing ground fast, not to mention what the SC natives will come up with once WaW gets into there artistic little fingers.
Sure, I've heard there is enough room for both, but with the other connotations like GGAWD, HOI, MWiF, Muzzy's Calm & Storm...etc
I really kind of doubt it. Johann, do not dither, this is opportunity knocking.....always fleeting at best.
We still think that there is different focus on the games out there and as a whole that will attract more WW2 gamers out there since more of them will get what they are looking for.
I seldom promote my own game but when being asked about it I will express my opinion about it:
CEaW has the most realistic and most fun tactical combat system of the WW2 strategic games out there that is my sole belief.
It is most noticable in multiplayer where the word "realistic" gets a new meaning. In single player there are always ways to compensate that the AI is dumber than a human by adjusting rules or handicaps or strategies for AI so that the appearance is more of WW2 and feels more real. Not until you test it is multiplayer with 2 tough human players fighting it out doing the best moves to win, you see if the system really holds.
After many TcpIP sessions of 10+ hours I still get the "real sensation" especially on the latest beta patch. I experience the most incredible games where the ebb and flow of this game keeps on surprising you and where your decisions on research and forces will come into play all the way until 1945 and affect the outcome. The tactical variations with combined arms and morale for air-armour-infantry is amazing and has been proofing very entertaining in my games so far. There simply are no gamey tactics that can be used to grab countries or get overly big. It strikes you when your manpower messages start to popup saying that "Germany are starting to recruit young and old" or when the oil levels start to drop when you have bought all too many thirsty Tiger Tanks and have not managed to capture enemy oil fields.
Posted: Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:48 pm
by Redpossum
seamonkey wrote:Achtung! Uhh...sorry, wrong language. What I meant to say was due to the imminent release of WaW it is paramount that this game engine be adapted to the PTO.
Here's the reasoning. The new features of SC are consistent with the evolution to the Pacific for the next release. Once that happens you will again find yourself behind the vaunted SC curve.
The Pacific provides for an equal playing field for CEaW vs SC and could catalize the needed notoriety for Johann's evolution to a leading edge game developer. HC will be immense competition, but let's face it, there are no other developers working in this realm currently.
Granted, there needs to be additional work continued on the present release in the form of patches, but don't lose sight of the main goal, parity. Emphasize the PTO now! SC WaW has some fantastic editing abilities and already Firepower is losing ground fast, not to mention what the SC natives will come up with once WaW gets into there artistic little fingers.
Sure, I've heard there is enough room for both, but with the other connotations like GGAWD, HOI, MWiF, Muzzy's Calm & Storm...etc
I really kind of doubt it. Johann, do not dither, this is opportunity knocking.....always fleeting at best.
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Way too many acronyms here.
PTO is obviously Pacific Theater of Operations, but how about you tell us what you mean by the rest, eh?
Posted: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:36 pm
by syagrius
firepowerjohan wrote:
We still think that there is different focus on the games out there and as a whole that will attract more WW2 gamers out there since more of them will get what they are looking for.
I seldom promote my own game but when being asked about it I will express my opinion about it:
CEaW has the most realistic and most fun tactical combat system of the WW2 strategic games out there that is my sole belief.
It is most noticable in multiplayer where the word "realistic" gets a new meaning. In single player there are always ways to compensate that the AI is dumber than a human by adjusting rules or handicaps or strategies for AI so that the appearance is more of WW2 and feels more real. Not until you test it is multiplayer with 2 tough human players fighting it out doing the best moves to win, you see if the system really holds.
After many TcpIP sessions of 10+ hours I still get the "real sensation" especially on the latest beta patch. I experience the most incredible games where the ebb and flow of this game keeps on surprising you and where your decisions on research and forces will come into play all the way until 1945 and affect the outcome. The tactical variations with combined arms and morale for air-armour-infantry is amazing and has been proofing very entertaining in my games so far. There simply are no gamey tactics that can be used to grab countries or get overly big. It strikes you when your manpower messages start to popup saying that "Germany are starting to recruit young and old" or when the oil levels start to drop when you have bought all too many thirsty Tiger Tanks and have not managed to capture enemy oil fields.
I agree 100% with you Johan and I am sure many others too, its a great game. However your post dont give any hints about where you want to take the series?
Some think its going to be Pacific which I think is good. I was thinking about WW I however there was many people who doesnt agree with this. What's on your mind?