Short Comments on Game

lparkh · Post by **lparkh** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 4:46 pm

My Background: experienced wargamer
Pros: simple panzer general like game system at a strategic scale. Always wanted to play a game like that. Fun to learn the napoleonic period a bit
Cons: diplomacy not modeled (which was key in this period to my limited understanding). The AI is quite passive for the most part (at least in early game). It seemed to perk up with russians as I got new moscow in 1809. At one level short of hardest it was not much of a challenge. Conquered all the powers in 1809. For me this is the most disappointing aspect. The AI of the PGII for example is better. Frankly right now it makes me not want to buy commander Europe given my experience here. To bad because I like the game system.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Jun 04, 2009 5:03 pm

Sorry you were not happy with CNAW. WW2 was actually a lot simpler diplomatically speaking so the deficiencies of CNAW do not really crop up in CEAW and you only have to look at the review scores to see its in a league of its own and a great game. The action is there from the start and you dont have the lulls you do in the Napoleonic War. With hindsight we would have done CNAW differently and focussed on each war as a scenario rather than trying to model them as one continuous war, but that's the beauty of hindsight.