Mudfrost Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 This is a cross-post and I apologize, but I'm anxious for informed responses. In search of a new wargame, I recently downloaded demos for both Airborne Assault and Strategic Command. While both look good, Airborne Assault struck me as the deeper game. Granted, I only played each game for a short while, so this is a rush to judgement. Never-the-less, I'm surprised at the activity in the Strategic Command forum when compared with the Airborne Assault forum. Is Strategic Command really the better game? The number of posts here seem to indicate this. I'm going to buy one of these games, so I'm just looking for some input from the vets of both games. My early choice is leaning toward Airborne Assault but I want the Strategic Command fans' perspective. Sell me wisely on one game or the other. Thanks, Mud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuomas Seijavuori Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Apples and oranges. Good games, do not compare them. Buy the one which interests you more. Whichever you choose, your money should be well spent. SC costs only $25, by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfrost Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 Apples and oranges--I surely understand. But which is sweeter? I enjoy grand strategy as much as tactical maneuvering. Heck, I'll probably end up buying both but I can only choose one for now. Thanks for your input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Number of posts? I can't think of a poorer way to judge a game. Go to a forum and see how my posts a person has made. Find the guy with hundreds even thousands of posts. Is this the guy best equipped to ask a question, not really. You have just found someone that posts a lot of posts. I would say though, you will have to actually read some of the threads through to see if the SC forum is going to be of any help to you. Additionally, don't stop here, go off Battlefront even and look for comments about both games. Of course if you have neither time or inclination, then I guess the only safe bet is buy both I suppose. But I myself no nothing of Airborne Assault, so I won't say anything for SC as it would be pointlessly biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mudfrost Posted January 4, 2003 Author Share Posted January 4, 2003 Lighten up, Sarge. I was simply commenting on the number of posts and wondering if that related to the amount of interest in the game. An active forum oftentimes suggests an interesting game. I'm simply interested in finding out why one might choose game A over game B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HolzemFrumFloppen Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Mudfrost: Man, that's a tough choice; but if current finances dictate that such a choice must be made, then it must. I know the feeling. Here's some help for you, though. The comparison between the two is one between apples and oranges. Lots of folks will point out that one is "real-time" (AA) while the other is turn-based (SC); others will point out that one is strategic while the other is grand-tactical. However, I think the the most important factor in making a decision between these two admittedly different wargames is the amount of "command" that's required for each. In Strategic Command, you'll have total control over your forces. Not one single corps, army, battleship or air wing will move without your explicit order to do so. You are, quite simply, in the role(s) of national leader, front commander, and divisional general. You're it, baby. In Airborne Assault, however, while you don't have to worry about resources, long supply lines, million-man invasions or technological advances, you DO have to concern yourself a great deal about just how your orders are carried out by the officers under your command. I come from a counter-based PC-wargame background (HPS' Panzer Campaigns Series, Schwerpunkt's Russo-German War, et. al.) and I am very used to having complete control over my forces (as I do in SC). But Airborne Assault knocks me for a serious loop as I have to resist the urge to try and micromanage every single platoon the way I'm used to. I give my orders from on high and watch my subordinates carry them out; and many of those lower-echelon schmucks drive me insane with their choices of roads, their angles of attack, and at times, their blatant disregard for the very essence of my plans. I get so frustrated at times, I yell at the top of my lungs at the computer screen (much to my neighbors' chagrin, I would imagine). Yet... dare I say it... this is exactly what grabs me about AA. For the first time in a grand-tactical or brigade-level game, I feel as if I'm truly in command. I can step in once in a while, drive my jeep down to the front, scream at the company commander, and order the company's forces around myself, but most of the time I have to let those officers do their jobs. It's quite cool, really, and will -- at least I feel -- give you a better sense of battlefield command than most other counter-based games will. I know I talked more in this post about AA than SC, but the latter is a great game, too, and my "gushing" about the former should not be construed as a dimunition of the latter. I own both and can say that the absolute BEST part about both games is that a good solid game can be played in one sitting; you don't need to start a second career at it to have fun. Contrast that with a current Kharkov '42 (Panzer Campaigns) campaign I have going... 7 months and still going strong. It's fun, yes, but I sure wouldn't mind if some of the lower echelon officers did some of the work. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fubarno Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 I need to download the demo for Airborne Aussault. Sounds interesting, almost like Close Combat but on the grand tactical scale you described. Close Combat is an old favorite. As far as Strategic Command, if you ever played and liked Clash of Steel, you will like this game (only $25 man, nice deal). It is a modern version with some of the elements, such as weather, production and diplomacy simplified. These diferences have been over hashed out here many times by a revolving crew of wargaming characters. Sometimes it is quite funny when the competitiveness and egos show their faces. Probably the reason for the high number of posts. I for one was looking for a tight game on this scale and with the 6th patch it has only gotten better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1b Posted January 4, 2003 Share Posted January 4, 2003 Lighten up? I was only pointing out a glaringly obvious misinterpretation of forum traffic. If forum traffic was a determinant of a games worth. Then you should be over at Matrix in the first place. After that, maybe in the CM forum. Because obviously that is the place to be, based on forum traffic. Man sometimes I swear that Battlefront forum posters are the most touchy people in existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hueristic Posted January 8, 2003 Share Posted January 8, 2003 Originally posted by HolzemFrumFloppen: Mudfrost: Man, that's a tough choice; but if current finances dictate that such a choice must be made, then it must. I know the feeling. DAMN why did i read this Now i have no choice but to check out the demo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts