Back to SC2

[honch]

Still disappointed, heading back to SC2!

You may say good riddance but with a view to stimulating a better CEAW product in the future, here is my list of deficiencies that need to be addressed by CEAW before I beleive that they can compete with the SC2 franchise:

1. Weather.
2. A more comprehensive and easier to use editor. (SC2 is a leader in this regard)
3. A very weak AI.
4. Paratroops.
5. A more random diplomatic and war entry system.
6. Buildable forts. (Engineers?)
7. Commitment to adding new features.

Kudos on these features:

1. The large scale map. Nice.
2. Tactical commanders.
3. The interface and look of the map.
4. Oil consumption.
5. Manpower.
6. Convoy system.

I'll check in from time to time.

[anguille]

Hi,

I am sure Slitherine is happy abour constructive critisism . Maybe you should make inputs for their next game Commander: Napoleon at war?

Cheers

[IainMcNeil]

Thanks for the feedback. While I don't agree with everything you say some of the things you mention are already in the sequel CNAW.

While we have added a lot of features since CEAW was originally released, the only way a game can be continually developed is if the same game is going to be sold to you again and again. We decided not to do that but instead go to a different setting so you get a whole new game, rather than a patch with some extra scenarios. Some people like one way, some like the other - each to their own

The engine will be continually developed, but obviously nobody can afford to give that away for free, so it's just a matter of deciding how it's packaged up for the gamers!

[honch]

SC2 has been successful with their SC2 expansions, Weapons and Warfare and Patton Drives East. I think that you would be pleasently suprised by the support you get if you were to release a CEAW sequel.

[MrsWargamer]

As I see it, you either like a game enough to not care about the fact it didn't score a 100% or you don't like it enough to stop playing it.

Now for me, if CEAW had a total fricking moron for an AI, it would still beat SC2 simply because SC2 is sufficiently ugly with those totally never needed them tiles. I mean come on, it's a game emulating classic board gaming wargaming. That means hexes. Neither Third Reich or World in Flames had tiles, so why Hubert went with tiles beats me. I've heard the reasons, and they blow chunks.

The SC2 editor misses a valid point I have heard many a time as well. Not everyone buys a wargame that requires the user to build the battles. Being equipped with an editor is nice, but I don't plan to ever use either the CEAW editor or the SC2 editor, so it's not relevant to me or any other gamer that doesn't plan to use it, how good it might be.

I've heard the Patton Strikes East game as nothing more than buying something that the editor was supposed to provide. Why should I pay for the same thing I can download for free from some editor fan? If they made such a great editor, then why make such a fuss over an over rated scenario.

That leaves SC2 as just having Paratroopers and weather as points worth inclusion really.
But I can offer things that CEAW has that SC2 doesn't and in the end, you juts have to pick one.

[Fallshcirmjaeger]

Having never played SC2 I cannot offer an honest comparison. I am certain it is great game. It looks good, anyway.

What I like about CEaW is the fast, easy gameplay. The systems are not hard to learn and the nuances within those systems have a simple elegance that lends to the nostalgia of days gone by. Hexes contribute immensely to this. The game has nice detail that is not detailed in the sense that the player is overwhelmed with micromanagement or buried in minutiae. The player simply has to play.

Another strong factor in my enjoyment of CEaW is the fact that the entire game can be played in under 20 hours or so. Many other really good games tend to drag on forever, while this one moves along quickly. The players have only one hundred or so turns with which to win, lose, or draw, and the turns do not drag on interminably. Again, this goes back to the simplicity of the systems.

The AI is lacking, but it almost always will be in solitaire wargames of this style. It is only a matter of time before one "figures out" the AI and then charts a course to beat it.

CEaW truly shines in the multiplayer arena, especially head to head TCPIP play. Here is where many features and options can really be executed. The only improvements I can think of in this area would be to give the offturn player a little bit more to do, and maybe make the chat channel a little more prominent for "trash talk."

Certainly things can be added or tweaked to improve the game, but again, this can be said for nearly every game on the market, regardless of genre. There are no glaring errors that I can see that have a major impact. Historical accuracy is always subject to analysis and compromises must be made for the sake of scale and playability.

These are just my personal opinions. I like the game. Its fast and fun, and doesnt require a PhD or hundreds of hours to play.

~ "On the other hand, you have different fingers."

[IainMcNeil]

That's exactly the experience we were going for with CEAW, Fallschrimjager so it's good to hear we got something right . It's not to everyone's taste but the aim was to try and open up wargames to a wider audience as the recent trend has been to make them more and more complex, hardcore, bigger and as a result niche.

[dooya]

Having never played SC2 I cannot offer an honest comparison. I am certain it is great game. It looks good, anyway.

What I like about CEaW is the fast, easy gameplay. The systems are not hard to learn and the nuances within those systems have a simple elegance that lends to the nostalgia of days gone by. Hexes contribute immensely to this. The game has nice detail that is not detailed in the sense that the player is overwhelmed with micromanagement or buried in minutiae. The player simply has to play.

Another strong factor in my enjoyment of CEaW is the fact that the entire game can be played in under 20 hours or so. Many other really good games tend to drag on forever, while this one moves along quickly. The players have only one hundred or so turns with which to win, lose, or draw, and the turns do not drag on interminably. Again, this goes back to the simplicity of the systems.

The AI is lacking, but it almost always will be in solitaire wargames of this style. It is only a matter of time before one "figures out" the AI and then charts a course to beat it.

CEaW truly shines in the multiplayer arena, especially head to head TCPIP play. Here is where many features and options can really be executed. The only improvements I can think of in this area would be to give the offturn player a little bit more to do, and maybe make the chat channel a little more prominent for "trash talk."

Certainly things can be added or tweaked to improve the game, but again, this can be said for nearly every game on the market, regardless of genre. There are no glaring errors that I can see that have a major impact. Historical accuracy is always subject to analysis and compromises must be made for the sake of scale and playability.

These are just my personal opinions. I like the game. Its fast and fun, and doesnt require a PhD or hundreds of hours to play.

~ "On the other hand, you have different fingers."

Great summary, I second every single sentence!

[syagrius]

SC2 has been successful with their SC2 expansions, Weapons and Warfare and Patton Drives East. I think that you would be pleasently suprised by the support you get if you were to release a CEAW sequel.

I agree 100% good comment. Its unfortunate that CEaW had no expansion because it would deserve one for sure. Can't wait to know where the series will go after Napoleon. Pacific I hope, or WW 1.

[ancient]

I can't imagine paratroops and fortresses adding anything worthwhile to the game, and I would absolutely hate random diplomacy.

Slitherine should work on refining and balancing the core game rather than add superfluous "features" like the above. It's unfortunate that so many people here would prefer the latter.

[firepowerjohan]

A very accurate summary from Fallshirmsjaegerm it is a fact that some ppl prefer more details while some ppl prefer more game flow.

Slitherine should work on refining and balancing the core game rather than add superfluous "features" like the above. It's unfortunate that so many people here would prefer the latter.

That is what we will do, we intent to keep working on our niche of fast and fluid gameplay. In fact, despite that 20 hour games seem fast in comparison to other more detailed games our goal has always been to make it quicker than that. Some ppl prefer to play games that last "only" 2-5 hours also.

For the Commander Napoleon at War you will get that chance since it will include not only the full campaigns but also some mini scenarios which last only 1-3 years hence only a few hours.

For example, who would not want a scenario where you start in 1812 and have as objective to defeat Russia in 1-1.5 years, that would be awesome for multiplayer as well with games that take only ~2 hours

[adherbal]

you start in 1814 and have as objective to defeat Russia in 1-1.5 years

of course he means 1812

[Batavian1]

Great thread and great comments.

Maybe SC2 beats CEAW on some aspects but that fugly tiled interface in SC2 killed it for me. I'd pick CEAW over SC2 for that reason alone.