Interested in your opinion John DiFool

[Batavian]

I'm interested in your opinion on which you prefer, SC or COS. Of course, I am assuming you have played both. What do you feel are SC's strengths over COS, if any. Thanks.

On November 13, 2002 02:27 PM, John DiFool wrote:

Okay, yer a newbie, so I'll cut ya some slack.

There must be 20 threads scattered throughout this

forum addressing this very topic, so feel free to go

read them first, then get back to us, ok?

John DiFool

In response to original post by Batavian:

I think most know that these two games are almost identical to each other. I was a huge fan of COS (Clash of Steel). I played the demo of SC (Strategic Command) and opted not to get it as I felt it did not have enough new/different features to warrant a purchase. SG felt like it should have been called COS v1.2. For those veterans of COS, honestly, what is there really new about SG that makes it better/different than COS?

[John DiFool]

Originally posted by Batavian:

I'm interested in your opinion on which you prefer, SC or COS. Of course, I am assuming you have played both. What do you feel are SC's strengths over COS, if any. Thanks.

I probably already made this clear in another

post, long ago, but, in a nutshell:

1. Battle of Atlantic: moving subs around is

fun [sC] but COS handled it better for the most

part [except for not being able to rebuild subs]

2. Operational land war: COS does this much

better, mainly because there are retreats, advance

after attack, and ZOC do more [like prevent

building enemy units in one]

3. While I dislike the "20 air fleets to victory"

in SC, I'm not crazy about the force pool limits

in COS. Let actual constraints in the game

engine prevent accumulation of huge numbers of a

particular kind of unit [like oil, for criminy's

sake... ]

4. Naval warfare [except for subs]is more

enjoyable in SC. I dislike [and still do]the

"sea zone" concept in COS [and WIF, which is

where COS ripped off the concept from]

5. Weather is nonexistent in SC. 'Nuff said.

6. Tech: I like the greater choices in SC [why

can't I get sub tech in COS?] but COS handles

the advances better.

7. I prefer Hubert's political model, for the

most part: either Franco will join you, or he

won't, and all the "political pressure" in the

world won't force his hand. But I dislike the

deterministic nature of things in SC like the Yugo

coup [in COS I managed to get them to join the

Axis a couple of times ]

8. Other things: paratroops [controversial].

Africa was done better in COS, AI is >worse< in

COS, interface is slightly clunkier in COS,

Rommel having a movement of 3 [yea! ] in COS, I

prefer [like subs] SC's having strat bombers on

the map [now if we could just target specific

industries as in Over the Reich, not to mention

occupied resource hexes].

Both games suffer from a lack of any sort of

logistic model [having to pay for it and plan for

it; because of the real-world problems the

Jerries had in this area, the Germans do better

in Russia than they would have historically,

given the same tactics and strategy].

Like others have said, the Perfect WII Grand

Strategic Game would combine the best features of

both. :cool:

John DiFool

[ November 15, 2002, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: John DiFool ]

[Batavian]

Thanks for the reply. I'd have to say I agree with everything you said, although I am still a newbie when it comes to SC. I do like the ability to play a person over the internet and am hoping to get some feedback on this feature. But that's a whole other topic.

Thanks again for your comments.

[JerseyJohn]

I'm a fan of both but would say they're far from identical. In fact, I think the differences easily outnumber the similarities.

Getting back to the original point, there really are a ton of earlier forums where his topic was beaten to death. Having commented my views extensively -- perhaps even borishly! -- in several of them, I honestly can't bring myself to cover the same ground here.

One thing I have to restate, though, is that SC is not an overall improvement of COS, it's essentially a different approach (production tables, naval tactics, etc.) and in some ways I prefer COS. In both games I hate the North African hex line which has no room for maneuvering -- it is relavent in one hex only, the once adjacent to Alexandria, where the Qattara Depression is closest to the Mediteranean -- which I've also said in at least a dozen earlier forums -- me and many others.

One thing about Clash, I always felt the computer was cheating!

[ November 15, 2002, 08:12 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]