Matt May Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Clash of Steel was put out by a small company several years ago. The graphics for SC are identical (at least for units & maps). The game was ok, but the AI wasn't so hot. Did Battlefront buy the rights to CoS and revamp it (as seems obvious to me)? How does gameplay compare to CoS? I might be interested in buying SC if problems from CoS were fixed. Thanks for any replies. NOTE: I originally was thinking of High Command, but was corrected and edited the original post. Sorry. [ April 15, 2004, 12:20 PM: Message edited by: Matt May ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzeh Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 It resembles CoS more than HC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curry Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 I also had HC. SC is No HC. It is also hex based and the chits may look the same but SC is much much much better than HC ever was in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt May Posted April 15, 2004 Author Share Posted April 15, 2004 Clash of Steel? Maybe that was the game I was thinking of - just change HC for CoS in my original post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzeh Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Well SC has a lot in common with CoS; it's more simplified but easier to play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Matt May We've gone through this many, many -- many times. If you hit the search engine for COS you'll be overwhelmed with threads. Last time I commented on this it was in great detail but I'll skip that here, in hurry. The resemblences are only cosmetic. Generals in CoS are Army Groups, not HQs. There's a production menu which is totally absent in SC and only certain units can be built -- naval units are lost forever and irreplacable! Combat is different -- a lot different, there are no combined attacks in SC. The naval system is so different as to have nothing at all in common. Nothing! And the list goes on. Play SC for a while then go re-examine CoS and you'll be amazed at how different they are. -- I really love CoS and have often wished SC was it's perfected version, but it isn't, they're two totally different games. Even the maps are different in many important details -- particularly in Russia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Les the Sarge 9-1 Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 A common and logical error I think being made over and over when comparing grand strategy games covering the second world war, is the second world war basically had a lot of qualities that were just hard to ignore. Thus, if your game is really any good at all, it follows it will have a lot in common with a lot of other games that were essentially "good". This is perhaps a good reason why you can often only make so many games of a specific setting, before you just have to grin and bear it and accept that one guy's game might have got there ahead of the other guy's game. I have SC for instance, but I also have High Command and Clash of Steel. Fine enough designs, but here's what counts. They don't like my new powerful XP using computer. SC, it runs excellent. Thus, it is quite immaterial how great those other two games "might" have been. They ain't on the computer any longer. It's fine if you are the rare individual that is holding on to that aging hardware that still runs archaic wargame designs. But most computer users are more interested in upgrading, not hoarding clunkers. A quick peek over at Matrix Games reveals that more than one group is busy working on grand strategy as well. Man I would love to have computer World in Flames. But if Hubert scores second hit with SC2, and then evolves his game to go global, chances are I will pass on CWiF. You only need one decent game to game something out decently eh. Gary Grigsby is also doing a global design. So I can't fathom people giving much interest in yesterdays designs. Especially if you can neither buy it or play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 To me High Command is another great game, it was beyond the DOS capabilities and probably even beyond anything out there now, but I'm glad it was put out. It should be updated at some point, made more playable, and released in windows format. But I don't think we'll see that. -- In my opinion there are very few similarities between HiCom and either CoS or SC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marklavar Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 Clash of Steel was a good game that could have become great. In design it was miles better than SC, but the AI was awful and naval warfare ridiculous. I was disappointed that SC wasn't a revamp of CoS, just an updated imitation. Hopefully SC2 will be the game SC (and CoS) should have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerseyJohn Posted April 16, 2004 Share Posted April 16, 2004 marklavar You've said exactly what I said about a year ago -- it's always great to find a kindred spirit. Hubert wanted playbability and succeeded, I've never wanted to bash either SC or his concept and neither of us are doing that, we're only stating our own preferences and they were matched better by CoS than by SC. But we can take heart, I think the second part of your post is right on the money, that SC2 will be much more what guys like us have in mind and the editor looks mind boggling! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thierrybo Posted July 18, 2005 Share Posted July 18, 2005 Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1: Fine enough designs, but here's what counts. They don't like my new powerful XP using computer. SC, it runs excellent. Thus, it is quite immaterial how great those other two games "might" have been. They ain't on the computer any longer. It's fine if you are the rare individual that is holding on to that aging hardware that still runs archaic wargame designs. But most computer users are more interested in upgrading, not hoarding clunkers. Hi, I disagree with that. We are not talking about "shoot them up" games, but computer wargames. I like beautiful maps and graphics , but frankly if I think Clash of Steel is better that SC, I will play COS. I will not play SC only because it is a Windows game. About running "archaic" games on XP, you did not tried Dosbox. I can run so many dos games and wargames so much easier with this than it was in pure DOS that I am completly stunned about it. I run COS as easily as a Windows game, and excepting graphics not up to date with SC, I see no reason to stop playing it. TB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Dave Posted July 23, 2005 Share Posted July 23, 2005 As orignally posted by thierrybo: ...but frankly if I think Clash of Steel is better that SC, I will play COS. I will not play SC only because it is a Windows game. Ah, LOL! Bo, Do you still churn yer butter With milk - weaned from a cow? Do you yet and yet confuse Zen with - back when Or, back then with - right now? Yo, EVERYTHING is... derivative, Don't you know, There's little that's... truly new Under this old cindering Sun. Do you confuse - peering through a Window Oh, Some rain-on-the-pane window, With being - freaking far - out there! Running & leaping - just having fun? LOL, It's alright, I'll "hoard clunkers" too, Like my 1927 Smith-Corona typewriter, yep, She's a crooked-key beaut! But, If you ain't got enny Window, Well, you ain't gonna appreciate Some thing - amazing! And new! SC-2! :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts