Interested in your opinion Bill Macon

[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 03:06 PM, Bill Macon wrote:

John, someone who has been registered on the forum since June isn't exactly a newbie. Maybe a lurker, but not a newbie. But yes, the SC vs COS discussions have been endless. Stomping back and forth over the same bloody ground, as upon the smoke-shrouded Cornfield at Antiedam, accomplishes little. At this point we can only hope that Hubert will thoroughly consider all the ideas and suggestions posted thus far, as well as all the good features from COS and other games, and integrate the best of them into SC2.

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?

[pzgndr]

I should clarify again that I never played COS; I bring 3R/A3R baggage with me. I looked at it once upon a time and wasn't impressed at all by the interface, so I moved on. When SC came out and everyone started talking about COS, I tried unsuccessfully to get it to run on my system so I could evaluate it. The COS rules appear comprehensive and reasonable.

My two major complaints about SC from day 1 are the turn/production system and the lack of seasonal effects. COS has these. The bi-monthly turns normalize production and impulses provide for increased activity during good seasons, much like WiF. And there are weather effects.

COS also provides some additional units such as engineers, paratroops and artificial harbors which help the game. Movement and combat rules also add something to the game, like overruns and retreats. Given that COS provided much of the model for SC but wasn't implemented, it's fair to ask why. Considering Hubert designed and programmed SC from scratch all by himself, I suspect there came a decision point to get the game out in playable form (and it IS playable!)and then work on adding in the rest of the stuff later in a future version.

I can't comment on the AI in COS, but from comments by others that AI had weaknesses which SC does not seem to have. What we do have in SC is an improved AI, an improved research system, HQs, FOW, random political events and various other enhancements. If SC2 builds upon these strengths and implements more of the old COS features, it should be excellent. However, SC2 does not need to be a COS clone. There are features from 3R/A3R, WiF, WIE and other games, plus Hubert's own original ideas, that would contribute to SC2 being a unigue and wonderful game in its own right.

[Kuniworth]

The AI in strategic command has some flaws, but compared to that in COS its like being in heaven.

[Batavian]

Bill,

Thanks for the comments. As you might have guessed, I have played COS and am a big fan of the game. I have not played SC as much so I cannot honestly comment on all SC has to offer. Both games are very good. The most exciting features I like in SC are the improved interface/graphics and the human vs human play it offers. We may differ abit about our opinion with regard to the AI. I have not found SC's AI much of a challenge. Neither did I find COS's for that matter. For the record, I played SC using the default settings...i.e., no AI experience advantage and beginner level (0%). I will let you know what I think of SC's AI once I tune the settings up a notch.