Clash of Steel?

[Norse]

As a conservative traditionalist, it is my honored duty to ask this question yet again, as it has now been a whopping 10 days since the previous debate on this topic ended. Now, if we can continue this fine line of tradition, then we shall have about 36 "Clash of Steel?" debates by christmas!

OMG!! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINK SC LOOKS ALOT LIKE CLASH OF STEEL?????

~Norse~

[sogard]

CLASH OF STEEL borrowed a great deal from a number of board games and a couple of computer games. I presume that Hubert knew what CLASH OF STEEL (CoS) looked like when he was designing STRATEGIC COMMAND (SC). In my opinion, SC is a major improvement over CoS.

So, what is your point? All game designs borrow from what has gone before. I would play SC over CoS in a heartbeat.

[dragoon19]

The categorization of Strategic European WWII games is indeed a fasinating hobby. :cool:

I therefore strongly support the current thread.

Remember however while CoS may seems to be a early predescessor to CS it is actually possible to trace the SC linage back to the renowned C-64 game Storm Across Europe (SAE). :eek:

In all instances however these types of games focus on a Strategic decision level in the European WWII theater and they share a more or less acurate geographical map representing Europe. The map as a common design feature still leaves the historical/geographical challenged players puzzeled and has invite numerous comparisons.

So lets start nameing as many SC type games as possible - its great fun

[RicKhan]

CoS, fond memories playing hotseat with gaming buddies. It had its day but that day is over for me.

What about War in Europe. No AI, 2 & 3 player modes and solo play against/with yourself :eek:

It has a large following but for me it is just to old with nothing new to bring it into the 21st Century of computer gaming.

Looking forward to CWiF. But then i've played the game since 2nd edition boardgame hit the shores of America.

SC is a great Beer and Pretzelz game IMHO. I look forward to any Tweaks to come and expect it to live long and prosper on my HD.

Old Games & Old Girlfriends have one thing in common, ur memories keep them alive.

:cool:

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

While it might shock a lot of posters here and abroad, it always amazes me, that I have never even seen the majority of these "old Classics" let alone heard of most of them.

But then again, I really must say, that prior to the 486, computerised wargames were about as satisfying as a sex life based on surfing porn sites (in my opinion).

And to deactivate any comments of opportunity, meant to be snide heheh, yes I DO look at porn (hey I am not about to imply I don't enjoy the female form hehe).

I entered computer wargaming with Steel Panthers (the original program).

I was only interested in it because it was visually stunning, had an easy to use interface, as well as being every bit as accurate looking as a good game of ASL.

I am only interested in SC, because it "approaches" the same manner of game quality as a good game of A3R.

To get me playing it, a computer wargame has to be as visually attractive as a board game, and as easy to play as a board game (physically).

I never by the way, rate games on the computer as being superior to board games based on my being able to fit them into unpredicatable playing times, space concerns, or lack of an opponent.

I like my wargames enough to "make" the time. I like them enough the the space IS made available. And an opponent for FTF is just a matter of being sociable enough to find a player really.

I have Clash of Steel around here somewhere on a Wargames compilation cd. The graphics sucked, the sounds were really nothing much, and the interface was nothing to get excited over.

Might have been good then to some, but it would have never been enough game to make me forsake a board game.

[Ancient One]

I'm going to be controversial here, and say that I'm not sure whether or not I'm ever going to buy Strategic Command, because Clash of Steel is in my opinion a superior game.

[dpstafford]

Originally posted by Norse:

OMG!! AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINK SC LOOKS ALOT LIKE CLASH OF STEEL?????

Not at all! SC is an incrediably POOR remake of the fine game Clash of Steel. While SC does add PBEM support, and slightly stronger AI, it fails in virually every other measureable area of design.

[sogard]

It is rather amusing to read comments like the last two which seem to only be made to spark a controversy. The critics have made their evaluation and it goes like:

The color blue is superior to red.

One has no idea why they hold this opinion because it seem both of them lack the ability to communicate it. If you don't give us the criteria of why you believe this, then your opinion is of no help to anyone else. Looks like flame bait to me.

[Canuck_para]

I just find it strange that both CoS and SC use the same maps. Even the countries have the same names. What was the chance that 2 games of WW2 in Europe would look similar.

CoS had a lot of good things, but so does SC. I used to dislike the navy system in CoS but now I think it was actually pretty good. SC runs on my computer which is good. SC is still growing and getting better.

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Hmmmm saying Clash of Steel is superior, and Strategic Command sucks......

Ahhhh so that is what bait looks like

I am not saying I will obssess over SC, but only a dolt would chose CoS over SC, based on my own basis points.

Hmmmm, why DO people post posts, that sure seem coloured to be nothing more than antagonistic comments?

Must be another example of "troll infestation", I better war up my Flammpanzer

[hans-micael]

I really think the almost devastating russian winter option from CoS and the posibility to convert production into diplomacy to influence minor neutrals are real musts in any update for SC 1.05 - if it is at all possible within the limits of the game - by the way does anyone know who owns the copyright to the original CoS.

Hans

[Canuck_para]

Originally posted by hans-micael:

I really think the almost devastating russian winter option from CoS and the posibility to convert production into diplomacy to influence minor neutrals are real musts in any update for SC 1.05 - if it is at all possible within the limits of the game - by the way does anyone know who owns the copyright to the original CoS.

Hans

I think it is abandonedware now. SSI had the last copyright to it AFAIK.

[RicKhan]

This is to "dpstafford",

Your remark in this thread could have been overlooked, but this is the second time i have seen this drive-by mentality posted by you. It is laced with ill-will and bitter thoughts.

Maybe you could direct me to the Perfectly designed computer game, balanced with never a patch or update for it? A game of perfect bliss where everyone ohhh's and ahhhh's about it even today.

Is your knowledge of WWII, computer game design and the meaning of life so great that a game like this is beyond having a fun time playing it? You must win every game u play to have such an opinion.

Have you Designed a game which may be played across the globe by people from many walks of life and points of view? Maybe u play in a poorly ventilated basement near a toxic waste dump.

Many people may find elements of SC lacking in Realism or Playabilty or both, but they have taken the time to express why.

Your remarks make me think you are a dull, unbalanced, poorly designed, drooling, crackpot gamer, that

fails in virually every other measureable area of

human design.

Normally I would not get this worked up over someones post, who i know nothin of, but your words are just so negligent as to be of criminal intent.

:mad:

[Norse]

oh my goodness, this last post cracked me up, LOL Man you guys know this art inside out! Keep it up!

[Ancient One]

I can't speak for dpstafford, but I for one did not mean my post to be a flame. I just don't think SC (in it's current incarnation) is quite as good as CoS.

I greatly admire Hubert Cater and his motivation to create a WW2 game, because that's exactly what I've always wanted to do (and am still planning to do). That being said, I'm not sure I'm going to buy a new WW2 game that doesn't provide me with a convincing WW2 experience comparable to a game made 8 years ago.

It seems that some people are upset that I didn't provide reasons for why I thought CoS is better (though it's worth noting that they didn't provide reasons why they thought SC was better ). Anyway, here they are:

- both sides relatively balanced

- industrial capabilities much closer to history

- limited units

- unique units

- delayed builds

- diminishing returns research system

- overseas convoys

- naval system which can provide historically plausible results

- political pressure system

- ability to replace dissolved units at lower cost (can only eliminate ground units by cutting off supply)

- assaults with several units at once

- replacable minor power units

- most actions have historically plausible results; with almost any action you take, you can say "that could have happened"

Now, I think it would be great if someone can tell me some reasons why they think SC is better, other than:

- playable in Win 98+

- playable by PBEM or TCP/IP

[Les the Sarge 9-1b]

Well I hope my justification doesn't sound toooo lame, but hey, some of us are trapped by this justification.

Yes I DO like SC because it DOES play on a system using Win XP.

For those of us in the world of wargaming that have been able to feverishly hold onto an old piece of garbage system, just so it can play old tired wargames, guess you have that advantage (is it an advantage?).

What I know about fixing computers is not worth telling you guys.

I have the XP using system I have, out of the generosity of a buddy that bought me the upgrade for last christmas (yeah 350 bucks, you can bet he is almost always on the top of the list for woodworking favours from me too).

He said it was easier to give me the upgrade, than always be at hand to help me "fix" my messed up system.

XP is stupid proof regardless of what its detractors might have to say about it.

If the game doesn't work on XP you can assume I won't care about who thinks what of it.

I have Win 98 SE loaded onto a secondary drive. I have it there to run a couple of not quite so old wargames as well as my scanner.

The games run, but they run poorly at best. They just won't accept XP's compatibility feature.

I like that SC has a blindingly easy to use interface. I am not going to reload CoS just to confirm that it has the same ole clunky interface common to all wargames of its time.

If the game is not easy to run during operation, then I could care less how "real" it might be.

I only play computer wargames when I want the work removed from the experience.

If I want the experience to be incredibly excrutiating, I will skip the chase and go load up the World in Flames demo.

As it stands, after playing through a quick bit of the 1.04 demo of SC, I call myself a sold customer. I am putting it on my christmas list under medium price range options for my wife.

Currently the only REAL competition it has, is the latest Dune novel Butlerian Jihad. So things look good for SC and me.

I want Matrix's Combat Leader soooooo bad, but a 60 dollar game that won't run until I buy a 100+ dollar video card upgrade doesn't look entirely promising. I also want Operation Veritable from MMP for the ASL board game (price there ain't no walk in the park either).

When it's all said and done, CoS was never a contender for me. And the design elements of SC don't completely bother me (as long as the AI puts up a fight, I might not mind).

[Tdolling]

I think CoS is the better of the two. Don't get me wrong SC is a good game just needs some additions that CoS had. In addition to the list above was given CoS also had

1. Winter in Russia that seriously hindered the Axis giving Russia opportunity to recover.

2. Transportation of units by sea was much more difficult hence Operation Sea Lion not so easy to accomplish among other things.

[Canuck_para]

Things that pissed me off about CoS that SC does better:

1)the ability to lose all of a nations transports. what, they can't build more?

2)Engineers. They could make the German position untakeable when a human bought them early.

3)Strategic bombing. Poorly executed system. No damage done or too many bombers killed.

4)Germans couldn't take Norway. Not enough transport. At least I couldn't.

There were flaws in the game. Still it was my favourite game for years. If SC gets played 1/3 as much by me it will be well worth it.

The main point is that CoS is no longer being worked on. Let's concentrate on helping Hubert make SC better and this includes getting ideas from CoS.

[Gen.Metaxas]

I love SC and its potential.

I don't play Cos anymore.

I don't care to discuss which one is better except in terms of learning and improving SC.

SC is a great game but its still developing, many of the issues discussed on this forum, the COS developers encountered them almost a decade earlier and built solution rules.

Now if you are interested in learning what made COS a great WWII European Theater simulation read the following 26 page analysis of the game written by Jay Purvis in 2000.

http://grognard.com/info1/steel.pdf

[vonManstein39]

I'm a COS fan, still play it PBEM, and have monitored SC from the beginning in the hope that it would be even better than COS.

I played the SC demo, but never bought the game, despite great enthusiasm evoked by posts in this forum. I was disappointed by SC.

The COS ground combat system is more complex than SC's and allows greater tactical flexibility. Often I can force an enemy unit to retreat in the direction I choose, and use this to aid my own advance. Also the classic blitzkreig techniques of attack and immediate exploitation are possible, rather than just slogging it out head to head until the enemy army is destroyed. For example, it is possible in COS for the Germans to reach and take Warsaw in the first impulse, before the Allied player can make a single move. I especially like the trade-off in COS between unit strength, supply, morale and efficiency which seems very realistic.

SC's naval warfare is more exciting and less abstracted than that of COS, but there are flaws here too that make the U-boat campaign very difficult to make a cost-effective strategy. SC's strategic bombing is also superior to that of COS. But it's the land combat that's the real meat of this type of game, and here I just prefer the COS system.

Another major advantage of COS is the political screen, where trying to influence different neutrals can really allow quite a lot of variation between games. Persuading Spain or Persia (Iraq) to join the Axis is a triumph, while there is a small chance of getting Italy to come in early or delay the American entry.

Transports in COS can be rebuilt - it's warships and subs that can't.

Amphibious invasions have the problem in COS that the transports are not screened by the escorts, they can be hit at random, and once hit every unit on board is destroyed. But on the other hand units can land directly into an enemy-held city or fortress, even if there is an enemy unit there. The chance of success per unit is small, but even Leningrad, Gibraltar and Malta can be taken this way. Load up four corps and try landing them all in an enemy fortified city and one of them is likely to make it.

COS doesn't have the same polished and protected PBEM support as SC, you have to save and email the game files, and trust your opponent to be honest, but within that limitation PBEM is possible.

[dragoon19]

For example, it is possible in COS for the Germans to reach and take Warsaw in the first impulse, before the Allied player can make a single move.

Very possible in SC as well