Liam Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 What do you guys think of these titles, one has a Demo but it's a bit short, Making History seems a bit Fictional. CEAW I hear mixed news on that it is good but needs time to be expanded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Retributar Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 Im sure i have seen that 'Acronym' posted several times from a few month's ago!, and have since had little interest in investigating it any further. Could you please,...if possible, post some web-links and a short write-up summary explaining the 'Who-What-Where & When' as to what this CEAW is all about!. ...From one who is... 'In-The-Dark!'. ENLIGHTENED AT LAST!!!... http://palgn.com.au/article.php?id=8022 Commander: Europe at War Review Neil Booth 30 Jun, 2007 A quick overview, then. CEAW lets you command the entire Allied or Axis forces in the European Theatre of War between 1939 and 1945. Your ultimate objective is to gain control of more European capitals than the enemy when the game thunders to an end in 1945 (or, if you so choose in the pre-game options, keep plugging away until one side or the other is reduced to a smouldering heap). Conquered enemy capitals count for more than just holding on to your own. So, simply put, you'll spend all your time defending your cities while trying to manouevre around (or through) the enemy to get theirs. You start out with a set number of troops, tanks, planes, ships and whatnot at your disposal, and you can build more as the game progresses. The number of units you can build is limited by your underlying economy. It's up to you to make sure you have sufficient resources to keep churning out the Stuff That Goes Bang by capturing new cities and industrial centres, protecting your current assets and keeping research levels high enough to make constant improvements. Without going into exhausting detail about the game mechanics, suffice to say that it's all very clear and keeps you in the enjoyably difficult position of making constant, conflicting decisions. Do you churn out another two armoured units to prop up the faltering Russian Front, or spend the cash on repairing your battered air units that are patrolling above the recently captured London? Maybe it's best to build a few more research labs, so you can get oil consumption down to minimum before everything runs out of petrol at which point, well, you're stuffed. There's nothing like being frozen knee-deep in Russian mud with an empty fuel tank to put a crimp in your day. It also has to be said that CEAW feels as if it's the first stage of a project that's going to grow into something bigger and better. Think of it as a very fine pencil sketch that will one day be worked into a full-blown oil painting - Commander: War in the Pacific, maybe? This is not a criticism as such, and there's no reason not to get on board now. It's just that, if anything, we're impatient to see the game's full potential given life. [ October 13, 2007, 10:17 AM: Message edited by: Retributar ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted October 13, 2007 Share Posted October 13, 2007 I play both games and find them enjoyable. I'll briefly say that Making History is a more managable (for me anyway) version of HOI and CEAW, which has improved with patches, has a Panzer General feel to it but with more detail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 13, 2007 Author Share Posted October 13, 2007 Thanks for the heads up on both titles, I get the feeling that there is NO Multiplayer community for either, and that Hearts of Iron I II and Doomsday has the following and dedication. I went through their forums I couldn't Find AARs... So what are people on playing these games vs AI? Are there PBEM or IP issues... Their forums are sort of vague on these issues... No that I do not like stand alones, it just rare to find a AI that is challenging.. even HOI's AI was boring, I recall doing unrealistic things with it...but their MultiPlayer aspect was a bit too complex, though maybe it's because I've only played HOI1 which seemed to have endless micromanagement and no streamlining. Anyways, I appreciate it and thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
targul Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 I play and have played both games. I find Making History so far from history to be alien in form. Not a bad economic game but as for a war game it fails badly. Now if you play the game pre patch it is a descent war game and has miserable economic model. Kinda fun though but if you are a history buff this one is a non starter. CEAW is a fun game again without any historical backing. Fun to play but it is so linear it has very little replayability. It lacks any AI in the south at all but the Russian AI is quite good. Western AI is so ahistorical it is kinda silly as is the strange use of transports in the game. Both games are fun but lack much replayability and both lack any simbalance to WWII. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J P Wagner Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 While I'm a bit uncomfortable discussing these games here (General Forum would be more appropriate) I just want to comment on what targul has said. I will agree, that MH will veer from a WWII feel but that is no different than what HOI does. Remember, the title is Making History, not Making Cookie Cutter History. But I feel that CEAW does maintain the flavor and the ebb and flow of WWII much better than believed. It may not be as good as SC2 but falls just below it. This ends my part in this thread because I'm sure that SCWAWEP will blow the doors off any rival when it is released so there is no need for me discuss these games any further in this forum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liam Posted October 14, 2007 Author Share Posted October 14, 2007 no need to worry, you see this is the "point!" When Strategic Simulations Inc. Created games like Eastern Front, they made me a fanatic. Many Many other titles as well, though many of their games fell short of what I desired...there was born the lust for the Gaming of WW2 Era... All these titles breed fans, that do not stop usually with 1 title, usually they multiple like Bunnies. Problem the competition between companies and the lack of cooperation. Sadly that is Business but few will overlook their petty little differences. I have to agree with what has been said it is so far my overall feel... CEAW will not be a SC2 WAW package. Though it will be good! And Making History, is a bit better than WAW and has an extremely 'neat' feel to it.. HOIlike but we all know that title is real detail and you better sit down for 6 months to study the detail, no an afternoon...like every other title even SC2 I'm still learning things!! "If you do not know who owns what tile and you're concerned about an enemy breech, hover your mouse over it! no matter where!" I forgot about a little feature like this say for Finns penetrating USSR to grab Murmansk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted October 14, 2007 Share Posted October 14, 2007 CEAW has some interesting stuff, but is even more WW2-lite than SC2 - I characterise it as a parody. I don't have it on my HD any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_j_rambo Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 Wargame companies should be glad their is competition, it brings more consumers into the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts