My Comparasion Piece

[Jim Cobb]

Check it out:

http://www.wargamer.com/articles/sc2ww_vs_ceaw/

[Scook]

Thanks Jim, it's a good fair side by side assessment of the games. The only discrepancy I see is the implication that you cannot move the Italians in SC2WW before they are at war (note: implied, but not said, it would be in the interpratation). It is nice to see features in both, and it gives HC a chance to look at what he would like to add in the "Franchise" of SC. I do like a scroll wheel zoom map feature, both closer and further away.

For me SC2WaW is my pick of poison. I don't need resources broken down into categories, and I have X I can spend, and I can pick my own failings . I feel I am playing the game more with SC2 and worrying about things like strategy, than say, playing Resources at War .

[Moonslayer]

There is an option to highlight air targets so they show up as an air unit is selected.

The Italian issue has been addressed so I won't repeat.

The report seems slightly biased towards WaW but maybe I am reading too much between the lines.

Overall a useful read.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Moonslayer:

The report seems slightly biased towards WaW but maybe I am reading too much between the lines.

Hard not to be biased towards the superior product!

I have a friend that tried to get me into CEW, so I showed him WaW. He is now pissed off that he didn't buy WaW before he got the other one. To be honest, it is a good game, but we both prefer WaW.

[Liam]

Haven't been able to play CEAW and it really is a shortcoming that Matrix Games doesn't provide Demos to some of their best titles. This usually means to me that there games aren't trustworthy enough to spend 35-55 dollars on or MORE! Though Matrix has made some decent titles, I have Shoppers Anxiety on getting a title I'm not sure on what's inside. War games are not fun to experiment with financially. Buy 10-20 of them and you'll see disappointed sitting with just 1 out of the whole group!

Now Strategic Command and I'll admit it, has it's shortcomings also. There are certain features that have yet to be implemented and game play could be better and simplified but I'm sure it would be beyond Battle Fronts Budget to do it. Their Graphics are some of the best. The Tile feature wasn't my first choice but it is like Civilization. I know I have played a lot of Strategic Command 2 and that makes me a bit less enthusiastic as a newcomer. However there is still a significant Community of SC2 Players but I do not see a significant community of CEAW players. I looked at in their Opponent Finder subject I see about 3 games organized a MONTH!

This is the deathnail for CEAW for me, I would buy it if I could and I would get involved with it if I saw 20-30 games being started a month when I know for a fact SC2 even though is not as popular an IP game as SC1 many people still play weekly. Probably 10 plus game IP, many many many more PBEM... That I know of

So CEAW has a lot of maturing to do before it will be compared to SC2 but has potential

[Jim Cobb]

Thanks, guys. I put a lot of work into it. SC@WAW appears to be the choice over at Wargamer, also.

[borsook]

I am very sorry to say this, but there are quite a lot of obvious mistakes in the comparison, esp when it comes to CEAW (btw CEAW is the officially used abbreviation not CEW). Allow me to mention a few:

1. "This game has an editor and scripting while CEW just has scripts." - Untrue, CEAW has an editor too, you just have to download it, like a patch.

2. CEAW is not a "Matrix’s game". Matrix is just one of quite a few publishers, perhaps using the name of the developer would be better?

3. "[CEW] Zoomed out, units appear as NATO symbols; such symbols are toggleable in the other game. " In CEAW you can have units displayed as Nato symbols in all zoom levels too.

4. You fail to mention that SC2 has semi-random research system, while in CEAW you can choose between semi-random and non-random one. This has a huge impact on how the games are played.

5.You omit the fact that SC2 tries to emulate manpower via limits, though CEAW simulates not only amount of manpower but also its quality.

6."CEW’s land forces are abstract with infantry and mechanized units labeled as corps and armor apparently depicted as divisions" Untrue, armour units are corps too.

7. You mention HQs in SC2 but not Commanders in CEAW.

Generally I am under impression that you had a bigger knowledge of SC2 than CEAW when writing this (e.g. you describe how subs work in SC2 ("Submarines can move silently but can only attack in “Hunt” mode." but fail to describe how sub hiding works in CEAW).

[Jim Cobb]

I'll only cop to #4. The separate editor is not part of the game. If subs work different than what I describes in CEW, then it's hidden too well. I did mention Commanders in CEW. One buys the game from Matrix and so has quicker recognition than the developer. The NATO toggles are not as accessible as zooming.

The article accomplished its purpose. If you llike nits, try to publish yourself.

[Canuck_TAR]

Good read Jim.

You forgot to dot one of your "I's" also

LOL!!!

Love when everyones a critic.

*Canuck from Combatsim forum*

[Jim Cobb]

Thanks, Canuck. I noticed a misplaced comma. I'm chopping off my left little toe.

[Hubert Cater]

Hi Jim,

Just wanted to say thanks as well for your time spent on the comparison piece

Hubert

[Jim Cobb]

Thanks, Hubert.

[Micheal Wittman]

I couldn't even get into the site because only ad after ad showed up, even when I clicked on the below

enter site text? if it has something to do with cookies I well not allow them, so I guess that would

be a no go for me if that's the case.

[Jim Cobb]

The link in my post goes straight to the article.

[Lars]

Nah, the ad showed up for me too.

But clicking through did work.

[Liam]

This is not meant to be offensive, but the particular article I found was somewhat informative. However it was a Layman's guide to SC/Commander. I would feel better served if a veteran of both titles was to comment on the details and features as this fellow hasn't put in the hours necessary to make a judgment call for "advanced wargaming"

All in all the description of both titles is inaccurate unfulfilled and I could have ascertained as much looking at the screenshots or reviewing the on-line bulletin boards.

I'd like a Very Very Advanced Player to write a Professional and edited piece on two of the most advanced and modern Strategic War Games in existence today. Hearts of Iron II does not fit into the category with it's RTS Feature and Province Style interface.

[John DiFool the 2nd]

Great idea Liam, but most of the VVAP's here have mysteriously vanished, at the precise moment when the expansion was released.

[Liam]

Originally posted by John DiFool the 2nd:

Great idea Liam, but most of the VVAP's here have mysteriously vanished, at the precise moment when the expansion was released.

Yeah, there is some dissention in the ranks John. I think all the war games coming out now have torn some of the market away. Also the IP crowd which is a very very popular or at least prolific group are a bit scarce and some do not PBEM they do not like the speed of it. I am one to identify with that, at times PBEM puts people to sleep. Though with High Tech PCs, High Speed Connections, streamlining IP will be back. Like Arnie

[Jim Cobb]

Liam,

I write the piece in response to public requests. If the kaffee-klatsch members here want to put their energies where their mouths are, I can steer them to two sited that might be interested.