Other games like SC

[horseman]

Anyone have suggestions on other games like SC. Turn-based world war II games. Other than five star general series (i.e pacific and panzer generals).

Alternatively, are there any expanded versions of SC?

thanks

[Piumarcobaleno]

You can check some oldies (Third Reich, High Command and many others) at www.the-underdogs.org , be warned that many of them can not work on a recent machine, if u aren't skilled with dos setting on a windows system.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

There are NO other games like SC.

Ok there are other games out there where the publisher has used the words "WW2" and "grand strategy", but so what, have you ever told someone something that just wasn't true?

Publishers can lie just as well as the rest of us eh.

SC is a good simple fast easy to play design with a very fast simple easy to use interface.

It models WW2 but not so rigidly you can't experiment with some totally whacky diplomatic offshoots.

Now if your only criterion is it be turn based and WW2, well heck that list could be as long as my arm hehe.

My top 5 names would be Steel Panthers, Close Combat, Panzer General, The Operational Art of War and SC.

I own those. There is reason to look into Korsun Pocket.

There is reason to check out the progress of Battlefields, Combat Leader and Airborne Assault from Matrix Games.

If you want 3d, well there are plenty of them out there, but I don't feel like wasting time on them frankly. That should say enough there.

[J P Wagner]

Just be patient for two games that are on the horizon....SC2 and Matrix Games version of World in Flames...I wouldn't bother looking backwards at any of the older games at this point..stick with SC until these other two hit the market...

[Jon Patrick]

actually, what I'd love is less another SC type game, and more of one where you are the president/dictator of a country, you deal with your cabinet/synchopants, and you have certain 'points' to dedicate to diplomacy, negotiation, trade, war, infrastructure, etc.

But not from a 'gamey' angle like Political Tycoon, or the Sim-type games. But more than just Diplomacy.

Ah, just wishing.

[Shaka of Carthage]

Jon Patrick

In the past there were a couple of games exactly like you requested.

One was called Hidden Agenda and the other I believe ?Shadow President?.

I may have the names confused, but the best one was the one that dealt with Latin America. You were the new leader of a Latin America nation, and had to deal with your cabinet, your military, the US and possible Guerrillas. I'm kinda sure thats Hidden Agenda.

Its still being used today in some schools to give HS and College students an idea of what the political realities are like.

[Panzer39]

Well if you don't mind trying real time combat (You can slow it down to a crawl), Hearts of Iron is starting to shape up into a great WWII simulator where you call all the shots. From picking your ministers to research its all up to you. It has a very strong fan mod group and with every patch it gets closer to perfection. In a Real time perfection sense.

[Jon Patrick]

Shaka,

Thanks for the reply, and I'm familiar with both the games you mentioned. I discovered them on the Underdogs site about a year ago. Shadow President was exceptional in many ways, yet (not to be picky) is an old, DOS game and it shows. Basically, it had no 'I gotta play one more turn' to it, and little replayability.IMHO, of course.

Hidden Agenda IS the other program you thought of, and I also have played it (you have to request it from the author directly). It was exceptional, BUT is OLDOLDOLD, and once you've played it a few times, you're done. Kinda like the old Choose Your Own Adventure books?

I'm thinking I need to learn to program and write my own game!

[Shaka of Carthage]

Jon Patrick

Agree, both games show thier age. I doubt seriously that you will see games like that in the near future, there isn't much of a market for them.

For something like that to succeed, you would have to have multiple players, each player assuming one of those roles, and process your "orders" and have player interaction thru the internet or PC programs. But its tough to do, since not enough people are willing to pay for a game like that to make it worthwhile for someone to develop it.

Develop as a "labor of love", then you won't be disappointed by the lack of income. And it wouldn't hurt to learn how to program, since the greatest benefit is that it sharpens your thinking process.

[ November 09, 2003, 03:48 PM: Message edited by: Shaka of Carthage ]

[Jon Patrick]

HOI...

I've heard of this game for a while, and I decided, based upon this thread, to go check it out.

Get real. They want me to buy their game, and they have no Demo to try? All they've got is a short and cheesy VIDEO to watch? Come on!

Geez.

[CC Baxter]

Unless you are into micromanagement give HOI a miss. It's just too much hard wok. I've tried hard to like/love that game but it just isn't going to happen. Stick to SC.

Uncommon Valour is good, not grand strategy but good nonetheless. You have control over individual ships,battalions,squadrons in the Pacific theatre from mid 1942-late 1943. It's a primer for War In The Pacific which promises to be true grand strategy for the "forgotten" theatre of WWII. I say this from a British/European perspective where the market seems to be flooded with games (from grand strategy to tactical combat) based in the European theatre. As a "Euro" I would like to say that I relish any WWII game NOT set in the European theatre. A change is as good as a rest!

[Friendly Fire]

Horseman, the best turn based WWII games out there (other than SC) is the Combat Mission Series. It is of course, tactical, and therefore not "like SC". There is a demo available...

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

Demos aren't for everyone.

Battlefront uses them, but then I consider them "lucky" nothing more.

Matrix Games doesn't use them, and no one cares, why? because no one worries whether a Matrix Games production will be worth it.

Strategy First, who cares if they do or not use demos, I have already had confirmed over and over that that company couldn't release a game right if its life depended on it.

HoI being a flagship example.

I think calling CM "the best" is a bit fan boy over kill myself. It is a good game, might even give it a great game rating.

But it is just one of a few good examples.

I am a Steel Panthers champion, but that game has weaknesses all the same. I have worked on the development of Mega Campaign Screaming Eagles for it, and still I am not going to call it the "best game" simply because I know it has equals.

[Paqman]

I liked Combat Mission III, except the AI is terrible. No logic at all behind it's moves.

Gets irritating after a short while.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

CM III ? which CM specifically are you referring to?

[Paqman]

Stupid me, I meant to say Close Combat III, not Combat Mission.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:

Demos aren't for everyone.

Battlefront uses them, but then I consider them "lucky" nothing more.

What do you mean by lucky out of interest Les?

To me, putting a demo out is simply a way to show the public a sample of what they will get for their money, good or bad, the same way you would want browse a book before purchasing. Some people wont buy CM after playing the demo, and others will. To be honest the last thing I would want is for someone to buy CM who otherwise wouldnt have after playing it becuase that would only mean those people may not return to look at our other games, like Strategic Command for instance.

Dan

[ November 10, 2003, 09:31 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Comrade Trapp]

I would have never bought SC if it hadn't been for the demo. But thats just me.

Comrade Trapp

[J P Wagner]

Originally posted by Comrade Trapp:

I would have never bought SC if it hadn't been for the demo. But thats just me.

Comrade Trapp

I think I would have bought SC even without a demo, only because there is such paucity of WWII strategic games out there, that I would have taken a chance on it.......

[JerseyJohn]

High Command and Clash of Steel, both old DOS games, are among my favorites and Strategic Command covers the same topic in roughly the same way. Each of the three games handle different areas of play in different ways.

SC is the easiest to play and, as a game is fine.

High Command involves the most effort and has to be micromanaged in every area because the AI is clearly inadequate. I'd say this one is the most historically accurate and it's system has the greatest potential, including areas such as inteligence, counter inteligence and espionage, but is just too complicated for present AI to handle.

It isn't designed for human vs human though it can be played that way if both players are perfectly honest (send saved game files back and forth). I've never played it against a human on one computer, but I suppose it's good in that mode also.

At the start of the 1939 scenario, Germany is about to attack Poland but doesn't have to. In fact, Germany can choose to never attack Poland or anyone else and just play in a diplomatic mode, which can be enjoyable in itself.

There are interesting minor items such as merchant marine fleets which can be shifted to different seazones and new MM units produced in harbors.

The game interface takes a little getting used to, particularly things like the merchant marine feature, and most of the instruction manual is poorly written, but if you're willing to read through to the end there are many rewarding concepts and ideas to be had. If the computer were able to handle the assigned load involved even in managing the human player's assets, this, in my opinion, would be the perfect War in Europe WW II game.

If it appears in Pentium V or VI on a WindowsWhatever platform, it might well blow all the others away. Great Ideas that are way ahead of it's time.

Clash of Steel Plays well, not as demanding as HiCom, not as user friendly as SC, lies somewhere between the two. Very good and short rule book, clearly written but must be read before the game can be properly played. AI often playes a credible, and in some cases even a good game. A few glaring weaknesses such as strategic bombing, which continues even when the side sending the planes does not have a major country -- for example, if the Allies are only represented by Greece, and has ten Stategic Bombing Points, they continue wrecking things unaffected by reality. Unlike SC and HiCom, COS has a separate screen naval system; no water hexes. Ships and air units on coastal hexes appear in it.

COS has production limits and a production schedule, as does HiCom. Both games are in DOS only and need special configuration using a lot of EMS memory and only work on very slow machines.

The PC version of Third Reich was also written for DOS before Avalon Hill went bankrupt. I didn't care for the concept, didn't like the game and especially didn't like the way the very fine looking instruction manual kept telling me what I could or couldn't do! One line particularly bugged me, stating that the Axis couldn't win, so the idea was to see how long it could hold out, etc & etc. ... A huge disappointment but even so it did have some good ideas, but to me this computer effort doesn't rate serious consideration. This is by no means my individual isolated opinion -- most reviewers seem to have thought even less of it than I did.

That last part needs to be qualified a bit. Some people want a game with a historical setting while other people want a game that faithfully recreates the historical parameters; weather, economics, production, inteligence, etc. & etc.. To me, of the DOS games, Third Reich was the worst offender, it was a game which bent history to suit it's play ideas.

At this stage I don't think SC is comparable to either COS or HiCom except, of course, it works in windows and they don't! But from what Hubert has been telling us, SC2 will be vastly improved and much more historically reliable than the present game. I have no reason to doubt it, he's always improved things before even within the admittedly restricted game engine and I'm sure he'll do wonders with a better one. I'm very much looking forward to the improved product.

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I called BF lucky because frankly they got away with it, nothing more.

I like the game (that is perhaps obvious).

I found the demo and it worked for me.

Only reason I think I am playing it is because of the demo.

But demos have been proven to boost sales just as much as prevent them.

Matrix Games refuses to use them. The reason being a demo is often a stunted partial copy of a game released before the game is finished.

The demo might in fact be bad advertising.

Some demos are just poorly done, and nothing more than that. Maybe it was more that the SC demo was down right.

I think the CM demos were down well, but I didn't buy it based on my not liking some aspects of the game. I am still not entirely sold yet. So the demo kept me away.

Some companies release games in slipshod fashion.

SF would likely get better sales for HoI that would have possibly over taken current sales to date if it had released a demo of the CURRENT evolution of that game.

But a demo of the game as it existed on day one would almost certainly have killed sales of HoI.

The demo of Airborne Assault originally from here sold me on that game.

When Matrix Games is done rebuilding it, I will certainly have it sitting on my list of games to contemplate getting if cash allows.

The demo of GIC disgusted me entirely.

My only reason for interest in EYSA is based solely on my strength of conviction Matrix Games won't release a game till it meets minimum expectations.

So there you have it, demos don't ensure any sales any better than they can destroy them.

[JerseyJohn]

Link to a related discussion of SC and similar games:

<Left Click for comparrisson of several similar games; poll & discussion.>

[ November 11, 2003, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: JerseyJohn ]

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Les the Sarge 9-1:

So there you have it, demos don't ensure any sales any better than they can destroy them.

Hehe, well to be totally honest Les that was once true, partically when demos werent so common and the internet not so popular, but all signs are that its changing and changing rather rapidly. In this day and age when many games are being released that are sub par to say the least (you mentioned a perfact example in GIC) more and more people are wanting to play a demo before they will even consider buying a game, this is unfortuantely a fact. I was recently at a games development conference recently where I live and this was one on of the topics discussed actually. The more complex a game is, the more the target audience tends to be careful about their choices and what they do and dont like, and as a result the more they want to see in a demo before they will consider a purchase (flight sims are the example the speaker used).

Now, you havnt bought CM based on the demos and Ill be honest with you...if its not something you would enjoy Im glad you tried that demo . Sure, we are a business and we would like your purchase, but we arent out to get it by selling you something that you didnt want in the first place. When the demo is out for CMAK hopefully you will give it another go and maybe find something you like there this time around If not, then maybe for the game after...at least we are giving you a sample so that you can make an honest descision.

So, what have the CM demos done for us? Firstly, Id say that they lost a lot of FPSer's who wanted a wanted a WW2 FPS style game, hehe. What we gained though is a lot of people who would ahve never considered a wargamer as they thought they were based on baords with counters. On top of that we got our demo out there on web sites and on magazine covers, which allows the game to reach thousands of people to give it a go whom otherwise never would have looked at it twice. This, along with the great reviews we recieved, I beleive is what made CM such a success for us...and yes, a little luck that people, particually the magazines with their reviews, took a chance on a small independant company

Now, that being said dont get me wrong...I respect Matrix (I think that they are about the only 'no demo' company out there?) for their descision and I wish them the best with it. Actually, I would suggest that with the style most of their games are a no demo policy might work well with them (most wargamers are interesting in details not visuals) but one you hit 3D people want to see it first, particually if you want to get others interested who might not like the 'wargame' tag. I hope its something they review in the future though (they have a few games Im interested in actually) but until then each to their own I guess I did noticed that they have a WWIIOnline demo metnioned on their web site actually...maybe they will use that as a benchmark?

Dan

[ November 11, 2003, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Les the Sarge 9-1]

I think the WWII Online demo is outside the realm of Matrix Games control possibly, due to it pre existing maybe (I have no idea really).

I know that IF I was going to do a demo of a game of my own creation, it would not see the light of day until the program was complete in all sense of the word.

It would also be designed to demonstrate, and would be designed to show you if it would run, and what it looked like running, but would not actually be capable of being played as a limnited form of game at all.

Too many people get a decent demo, and settle for just playing the demo and never buying the actual game.

I know that sounds dumb, but I have seen it happen.

It is possible time will see demos marketed more and more through online download, and less and less through those wretched excuses found in over priced gaming magazines.

This might in time make a difference.

Placing a demo inside an expensive PC magazine is the same as telling me to pay for the demo.

Take for instance a magazine costing me 10 bucks (I have seen those prices as common). The cost of the magazine has just cost me 1/3 of the cost to get SC. I would not say that was a good thing.

To download a demo off the net though is nothing to me. I can download demos all day if I feel like it. I am online at any rate.

[Kwazydog]

Les, I actually agree with everything youve said there

Firstly a demo (unless specifically a beta demo, which can also have its place) in my opinion *must* be the same as the shipping code as you suggest. To make a demo based on early code only leads confusion and of course people will find bugs, etc. I think GIC is probably a good example of a demo that was released on earlier code and thus showed many problems that may have otherwise been avoided.

Also agreed that there is a fine balance between giving people a 'demo' and giving people too much. What you need to do is to give them a taste of that the game plays like, get them excited, but not give them so much that they get too much for free, hehe. For instance some people suggested a long while back that the CMBO demo should allow randomly generated maps for more replayability. Now that would be too much, hehe, and also showed that the demo we gave got them excited enough to want more

Lastly, yup, I think its the internets fault that people want demos more and more. They offer a free sample that is quick and easy to get whenever you want it...something which is indeed a benifit over mags. I guess its the net that has allowed companies like ours and matrix to exist though, so I cant really complain, hehe.

Anyways, interesting discussion. I hope you give the CMAK demo a go and find it to your liking If not though hang in there for the new engine, hehe.

Dan

[ November 11, 2003, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]