I finally found the WWII Grand Strategy game I've been looking for. It's got a perfect mix of beer and pretzles play with some advanced features without going way overboard. If you are looking for something like that, this is killer. Picked it up about three days ago and can't stop playing for the life of me. Still just playing the AI but the multi-player looks to be where this one really shines. Anyone else try this one? If you still aren't sick of 'yet another' WWII genre game and you are looking for something you can just dive in to, I highly recommend it. Can't wait to play multi-player but I'm barely holding my own against the AI so that can wait.

I love it! It's one of the few games I come back to again and again.

Damn you, Xtiaan! I just picked up Gary Grigsby's World at War, now you're tempting me again! 

Seriously, can you guys tell us a little more about it?

I can't get over the fact that you can't stack and ships are too slow to sail (based on old reviews).

Slick, the battlefront site can explain it much better than I could. There is a Demo for it also.

Jomni,

I don't think they've allowed stacking (and I'm not familiar enough with the engine to know if they compensate for that in some way by allowing units to be built with different force characteristics, so that a unit starts as a base infantry and then adds so many tanks, arty and horse scouts for example). This would become especially goofy in the case of new units like rail cannons: that square of such-n-such miles has only a railcar cannon in it???

Nor does their list of new features address ship travel time.

Here's the new feature list page, for what it is worth: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=284&Itemid=483

(Try not to laugh at their attempt to illustrate the new zoom levels. {wry g})

And the page of new and old campaign options: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=285&Itemid=482

I do appreciate the game and what they're attempting, and I've thought about buying it several times, but have never quite gotten around to it yet.

(OTOH, a lot of people say that their new WW1 game on the same engine, restricted to the usual Europoean/Med map, is the new standard for that war, and even provides a newly improved way of running European/Med WW2. But that both types of game are still quite different.) http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=271&Itemid=452

Originally Posted By vonRocko

Slick, the battlefront site can explain it much better than I could. There is a Demo for it also.

Right, I just checked it out and it's using the same(or slightly modified) engine that SC:WWI uses. In that case, I won't hesitate to purchase it. Some people think the map looks to, I don't know, 1998-ish. But it's fine for me, and the AI is solid. They dev team also adds in news events via newspaper extras which help to enrich the flavor. Unless they've really changed things under the hood for this game, it should play as nicely as SC:WWI.

I've got a crappy non battlefront version of SC2 and I still really enjoyed it.  Now I'm debating on whether to get WW1 or WW2.

I lost interest in this a while back when I read that ships take, what?, a year to sail from the Atlantic to the Pacific? Too absurd.

Well, what is really nice about the game is it scratches that itch for 'what if scenerios'. I've discovered there is a lot more going on under the hood of this one than you realize at first. It's easy to pick up and just play but every production point counts, every research point counts and the political pressure you put on other countries really make each game different. The game really punishes you for making bad decisions and not thinking ahead. The game plays out in two week turns but somewhere in the back of your head you have to be thinking a year ahead in the game. What units do I want by then? I don't mind the 'no stacking rules' for a game on this scale. It seems to be balanced for multi-player so the axis or the alllies have an equal chance to win and it comes down to who is a better player.

For instance, It took me a couple of games for to realize that Italy will get chewed up without German help in North Africa. If you help it's nearly impossible to take it to the Russians when things start up on the Eastern front. But the best thing about the game is getting to play as Japan. They have so many options on how to conduct the war. I'm finding the game difficult even on the easy difficulty still but I'm a noob. I get bogged down in China and it's a tough nut to crack. But whatever, I'm new to these kinds of games so it's still a thrill. It's just a really good war game for people who don't play a lot of war games. lol

BTW.... There are some killer 'what if' campaign options in the 'Gold' version that I haven't even explored. Like, 'what if' the Axis and Russia joined forces and the U.K and U.S had to hold out against them. There's another that's an east/west cold war slug fest. Tons of mods out there by die-hards. Haven't tried any of it yet because I'm still just learning the basics of the game.

This game just never "clicked" with me despite really wishing that it did.  I got SC: Pacific Theater and just found it dull, limited and lacking. The unit graphics and maps never apealled to me and I always seemded to struggle against the UI.  I just don't see what everyone raves about. 

There is an AAR of the gold version on the battlefront forum that gives a good idea of gameplay. I quite liked the earlier incarnations but have not tried the global ones.  It's a very good "game" even though realism might be stretched at times tactically and operationally it does a decent job on the strategic issues.

I am with JH here. I have SC2, have played it as bit, but always seem to prefer Commander:Europe at Waer Grand Strategy mod. A lot slicker and nicer looking. I would like this game to offer a global perspective though.

Originally Posted By gocrows

I am with JH here. I have SC2, have played it as bit, but always seem to prefer Commander:Europe at Waer Grand Strategy mod. A lot slicker and nicer looking. I would like this game to offer a global perspective though.

Yes! If you are listening, Matrix, Slitherine.......Commander:World at War should be your next project!  Name your price and I'll kick in my first-born for free! But eh, finish up Commander:The Great War first....my money is burning a hole in my pocket as I wait!

I've rather been enjoying myself with Making History 2 now that it has had some polish and patch time behind it.  The game is anything but historical if you start in 1933 because there are far too many variables that can be changed, but as a WWII-themed grand strategy game it can be quite fun.

Originally Posted By gocrows

I am with JH here. I have SC2, have played it as bit, but always seem to prefer Commander:Europe at Waer Grand Strategy mod. A lot slicker and nicer looking. I would like this game to offer a global perspective though.

I almost picked it up. That or Time of Fury but I wanted the global perspective. Will still pick up one of those Slitherine games and would love to see them do something like this. SC is probably a good primer for those Slitherine games.

SC had a better AI then at least earlier Commander Europe at War versions, IMHO. 

Just wanted to say that I really enjoy playing SC WW I, and have found SC Global Conflict Gold pretty good too. In particular, I found it much, much better than Commander Europe At War Grand Strategy 2.0.

There are of course issues that cause concern or problems in sc. In one of my OLD reviews I certainly commented on the fact that ships move far too slowly in SC - and they do. However, the naval game in SC is far superior to that found in Commander Europe at War – really. CEAW is monumentally frustrating to play from a naval perspective. SC is hardly great, but it is, in my view, quite a bit better.

The naval aspects of both games are not the central feature though. SC is more focused on the overall strategic dynamic of these wars, as is CEAW. I find SC much better in its more recent iterations, as it has introduced quite a few more Decision Events (DE) that really draw players in.  These DEs are a GREAT feature.

Different games appeal to different people, but I think JH is missing out by basing his views on Pacific Theater, which is (in my clearly not very humble opinion!) the worst of all the SC games so far. There is actually a good reason that the Pacific Theater is not very good – the naval component is rather important in the Pacific Theater! Since the naval aspect of SC was not all that good back then, the game was not very good either. The naval aspect is a little better now, but it is still the weakest aspect.

I had not anticipated that I would actually find a World War One game all that interesting. I had tried to play Guns of August several years ago – and really found it underwhelming. However, SC WW I is a really, really good game. It is not too bad against the AI, and it is absolutely outstanding PBEM. Human opponents really add a lot to the entire experience, which is already pretty good in this game, and the replay feature in SC is one of the best I have ever used.

Why is SC WW I so good? Overall, I would say that the overall game balance is pretty awesome, with the result that players often find that decisions far away in one part of the theater really affect things elsewhere. The balancing act between the eastern and western fronts, as well as the Balkans and the Middle East, are all combined remarkably well in this game.  The game can be won be either side, and I have both won games - and been beaten badly on occasion.  But the game has been good to play even when I am being thrashed!

Even though SC makes some effort to model the situation reasonably, there is clearly a strong effort to balance the game so that either side has a reasonable chance of winning. This can cause some concern if you are highly focused on realism (whatever that really means in wargames, an endless debate if there ever was one) but the latest games from Hubert Cater are really challenging and (from my persepctive) really well done.

Originally Posted By Steelgrave

Originally Posted By gocrows

I am with JH here. I have SC2, have played it as bit, but always seem to prefer Commander:Europe at Waer Grand Strategy mod. A lot slicker and nicer looking. I would like this game to offer a global perspective though.

 

Yes! If you are listening, Matrix, Slitherine.......Commander:World at War should be your next project!  Name your price and I'll kick in my first-born for free! But eh, finish up Commander:The Great War first....my money is burning a hole in my pocket as I wait!

While I hear good things about the huge "Grand Strategy" fan mod for C:EaW, and even better things about the upcoming WW1 version... I just can't pull the trigger on that game. Possibly because my only exposure to it is on the Playstation Portable, but Matrix actually boasts about the official upgrading patch to the game (not the Grand Stategy mod) bringing the PC version up to PSP status.

That... isn't helping, Matrix. I've played the PSP version.

(I should note that most of my problem with the PSP version amounts to not liking the controls vs. a mouse and keyboard; and the screen being so relatively small compared to basic map functions that I feel claustrophobic trying to play it because I can't see enough of the strategic situation at once. Factors which are more subjective taste than objective problems with the game, and which would be completely irrational to attribute to the PC version on my nice 27" TV/monitor. However, I also know part of my problem was that I couldn't get past there being only one unit allowed per hex--one of the problems ((possibly misinformed for either game??) that also keeps me from grabbing the latest Strategic Command games despite my admiration of them in several other regards.)

Btw, I seem to recall that either (or both) SC:GC-G, or the new fan "Grand Strategy 2.0" mod for Commander, works hard to help keep Axis players in the game late (or Allies if they happen to be losing) by keeping track of the score in such a way that players feel motivated to allow the other side to go ahead and press for the win "on the board" (the Battle for Berlin for example) because the "game" score might still count as a "win" for the war-losing side.

...or maybe I'm thinking of some other game? (I looked into a lot of them while post-Christmas shopping at Matrix.) War in the East perhaps?

Anyway, I was curious whether anyone familiar with either game had some comments on that. It seemed like a good idea at the time. (But we all know how that phrase is usually applied, of course.)

Originally Posted By Ludi

 

 

 

 

Different games appeal to different people, but I think JH is missing out by basing his views on Pacific Theater, which is (in my clearly not very humble opinion!) the worst of all the SC games so far. There is actually a good reason that the Pacific Theater is not very good – the naval component is rather important in the Pacific Theater! Since the naval aspect of SC was not all that good back then, the game was not very good either. The naval aspect is a little better now, but it is still the weakest aspect.

 

 

In my opinion SC Pacific War is not a bad game. And I like the carrier battles, they work pretty good, just like all other naval battles. But for me it feels like SC Pacific was somehow born without its own true soul, if i may call it this way. Can't explain it any better.

If i could choose, i would enlarge the map to SC WW1 (which is, as already mentioned above, a brilliant game if you play it against a human opponent) scale, throw in about 100 hundred more decision events full of options, orders, baits and history, a couple more convoy lines, additional reasons to decide for different apporaches (Island hopping yes or no, Defending Guadalcanal because of..., etc.), and maybe less scripted free units. And I'm pretty sure that the National Morale feature which came with SC WW1 would work wonders for SC Pacific.

But in my eyes it is as it is still a good game, nevertheless. And only its release and improvements opened the way for SC Global Conflict, which is really great game, especially in the Gold version.

Originally Posted By JasonPratt

Btw, I seem to recall that either (or both) SC:GC-G, or the new fan "Grand Strategy 2.0" mod for Commander, works hard to help keep Axis players in the game late (or Allies if they happen to be losing) by keeping track of the score in such a way that players feel motivated to allow the other side to go ahead and press for the win "on the board" (the Battle for Berlin for example) because the "game" score might still count as a "win" for the war-losing side.

 

...or maybe I'm thinking of some other game? (I looked into a lot of them while post-Christmas shopping at Matrix.) War in the East perhaps?

 

Must be any other game, but none of the Strategic Command Series.

Nice MacD quote, btw, Worm. {g} (I'm an administrator and guest author at www.evangelicaluniversalist.com, and a Lewis-based theologian.)

Anyway, while we're talking about the Global version of Strategic Command (and its Gold version), let me ask: how does it compare to SC2 with all the expansion packs and upgrades?

I realize the Gold version of SC:GC adds some campaigns similar to the what-if scenarios of SC2, but SC2 was patched up to feature global World War 2 with all the bells and whistles of the expansion packs.

Is SC:GC basically the same as SC2 patched up to its own global war option? Is it an upgraded version of SC2 patched up to its own global war option? Heavily upgraded? Upgraded (even heavily) in some ways but not in others (missing some of the special campaigns for example)?

Thanks for the link, JP, and wow (!), respect for what you do- I'm a Lewis fan, and with this i discovered MacD, to my great joy, even though his books are more or less pretty rare in Germany.

How does Global Conflict compare with SC2, well, thats is a good question.

You can't really compare them with each other. All SC2 games where only single theater games, so there was no (official) SC2 Global Map or Global War game engine.

Global Conflict has the whole globe. This means, if you waste your UK fleets in the north atlantic, you won't have them to stop the japanese attacks in the pacific.

Or if you move your german cruiser Graf Spee away from ARGENTINIA, you can use it to bring havoc into the Indian Ocean or to attack australian troop transports.

The basics are the same, but after i played Global Conflict, i will never ever return to a single theater of operation campaign again. Only exception was the WW1 game of SC, which is, at least in my eyes, the best SC game ever released, as it offers a fresh scenario, and brings it back to live in such a perfection, that i and my brother abondoned all our WW1 board games we were playing before. Not because the board games were bad (Ted Raicers "The Great War in Europe deluxe edition", "Paths of Glory" and several others), but because SC WW1 pulls you right into WW1, especially if you play a multiplayer game against a human opponent. It is this good.

Nothing against the SC WW1 AI (or any other AI), but until today i haven't found a single AI that was able to bring me that much fun like a human opponent can give me.

There are several game engine changes between SC2 and Global Conflict, and even more between Global Conflict and Global Conflict Gold.

There are now retreats (as a combat result), decision events (great fun, they remind me at the card driven board games), less scripted events: units usually don't suddenly appear at the map like in other single theater games, example: "The Prince of Wales BB appears at Singapore")  if YOU don't move the unit where it is needed the most.  So if you don't move the Prince of Wale BB into the South Pacific, it will stay in the UK. Another example: you can send the ANZACs to Egypt, or you can keep them in Australia to build a reserve for the upcoming japanese invasion. But you need help in North Africa, while you still won't strip the Pacific, so what should you do? These kind of decisions are awesome. If you send the Anzacs to North Africa to stop the german Afrika Korps, you will suffer because of your fear of the Japanese threat, now that these elite units are away in Africa. Or you could improve Singapore, but this would mean that you can't spend money to fight the german U-Boats in the North Atlantic. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT? You will always feel bad about your decisions, as you don't have enough money to pay for everything. Imagine that you decided to ignore Singapores cries for help. When Singapore surrenders to the Japanese, you will know that this was at least partly because of YOUR decision to deny them any more help. These decisions suck you right into the campaign.

And SC WW1 is even better at this.

SC2 was a great series, and i bought every game and every expansion. My dearest campaign is within the Patton drives east expansion.

But nothing compares to SC WW1 or SC Global Conflict Gold. As good and important the SC2 releases were when they got released, i would trade them all in to get access to SC WW1 and SC GC Gold.

Today i presume that you won't miss anything from SC2 in SC GC Gold. The best campaigns of SC2 are there, but not just there, they are much improved, advanced, complete, like they always should have been.

It feels ridiculous to for me today to play a map which ends at the Urals or at the USA west coast. It feels only cheap once you have played SC GC. "Here the map ends", well, this never felt right, in no game, computer or board game. Sail around Cape Horn or through the Panama canal, and you will know what i mean.

Well, of course  i should add that i'm a beta tester of SC WW1 and SC GC Gold. I tell this not because i have something to hide, but to tell the whole truth.

I was invited to the beta testers after SC GC was released. Not because i was a fan boy, but because of my critics about the vanilla version of SC GC.

Unescessary to tell you how great it feels if your personal points of view get into game changes withing the next patch. Thats how Furysoft works. They listen to their community.

If i ever fell in love with a game, than it was SC WW1. Tons of pictures, decision events, the fresh scenario, the working WW1 game engine (not a WW2 engine on steroids or a raped WW2 engine). Everything is there. From mobile warfare to the run to the sea right into trench warfare (for several years), than back to mobile warfare. Authentical. Believable. Awesome.

Later SC GC Gold integrated all the SC WW1 changes into the already good SC GC game engine, and added some pretty interesting "what if" campaigns, too.

So it is, if one would like to call it so, SC 2 1/2, with a global map and the best (and because of the global map big time improved) what-if campaings of SC2.

As you can see it is hard for me describe it properly. Partly because i'm german, and my english knowledge is still very limited (and full of typos), and partly because i have played and invested quite a bit of time into SC WW1 and SC GC Gold.

I don't know if you have played SC1 or some of the SC2 releases. But what i know is that SC WW1 and SC GC Gold are so good, that you can easily delete any other SC predecessor from you hard drive once you have installed them.

GC don't offer you ALL the SC2 campaigns. There were simply too many if you look back to all the add-on which were released for SC2. But it offers you many campaigns, and quite a lot of "What-if"-campaigns, too.

I would call SC GC a heavily upgraded version  of SC2. Not a patched SC2, but truly upgraded and pretty much improved SC2.

The good thing is that it is easy to play, like Panzer General or Clash of Steel. And it works very good, even the AI can hold its ground, at least much better as than many other AIs around.

I have played my share of board and computer wargames. I played some great games, and a legion of mediocre or bad games.

SC GC and SC WW1 are some of the best games you can get. Today i would call SC2 nice, but not as much fun as SC GC Gold or SC WW1.

And, most important, the SC games are not WORK like HOI or Gary Grigsbys Games. They have a good user friendly interfaces. They have an ingame manual. They work without crashing down your computer.

They have game developers and campaign editors which listen very closly to what you have to say.

If you like you could play the demo of either SC GC Gold or SC WW1. Don't believe anything i wrote here, just play on your own.

Interesting write up. Thanks!

I think I will have to run the demo a few times to see if this is something I would like to play.