I noticed that on my second playthrough, and in the same way, putting skirmishers and dismounted cavalry in the farmhouses ahead of the town helped delay the Confederate advance until my reinforcing infantry made it to town, and my artillery set up on the hill across the river to the southeast.
So I’ve put an hour or to into “Strategic Command WWII in Europe,” released today by Matrix and Slitherine. My first impressions are mostly positive. The game seems polished and fun.
Gameplay is surprisingly deep. You have to decide not only where to move and attack, but also about research, production, allocation of replacements (elite and non-elite), and so forth. There are options for manual or auto management of HQ attachments and fighter escorts/intercepts; I’m still figuring that stuff out. Units have historical designations, and when you produce units, you’re invited to give them designations from a more-or-less historical set of choices. It seems somewhat more complex than the old Clash of Steel or the Order of Battle games, but far less complex than monsters like War in the Pacific/Admiral’s Edition.
There’s no tutorial; I had to read the “Essentials Guide” before doing anything, and then I played the first turn in the 1939 campaign. Now I’ve paused to read the entire manual. It’s a beautiful, long, detailed manual!
It’s too early to tell much about the AI. A fair bit of it is scripted, supposedly. The computer opponent spends a fair bit of time thinking, which may or may not be a good sign, lol. It’s even more insistent on one-unit-per-tile than Civ 5/6; except for carriers, every unit sits alone, even HQs and air units.
The victory conditions for the Axis seem unrealistically tough: to win a marginal victory you have to survive til 1947 while holding either London or Moscow! For a major victory, the Axis has to hold both those cities. For a Decisive victory, those plus Leningrad and Stalingrad before 1947. Well, I think this all adds up to a tough challenge for the Axis player, which is good. Also, victory conditions and scripted events are easily moddable; indeed, you can pick and choose scripted events from the main menu, for handicapping or realism purposes. Likewise, you can give the PC advantages or disadvantages as you like.
The game features lots of events that require player decisions. While not as complex as the recent Decisive Campaign Barbarossa, they’re still fun and interesting.
The UI and graphics are generally nice. Personally I find the maps a little dark and drab, but they’re clear and easy to use. I’m glad to see that we have the option of NATO symbols or sprites. (I like NATO symbols.) There are a fair number of hotkeys. From the main map, ESC takes me to the desktop, which is a bit of a surprise, but actually kinda handy. From within menus, ESC backs you out, as you would expect.
I’ll post more thoughts once I’ve played a bit more.
Thanks for that. This does seem intriguing. Can you compare it to Panzer Corps or Order of Battle?
Also, the screenshots make it look kind of like the Wastelands Interactive games (Time of Wrath/Time of Fury, and the disturbingly similarly named “Strategic War in Europe”) which I didn’t care for. Is there any relation between these games?
One correction: the manual for “Strategic Command WWII in Europe” does include a tutorial walkthrough of the start of the campaign, around p. 25. Wish I’d read it before I played my first turn. :) It’s quite helpful.
As for comparisons, I’d say this game is deeper and more complex than Panzer Corps and Order of Battle – games I love but put more in the “beer and pretzels” category. For one thing, SC is a strategic-level game with a “persistent” battlefield: it’s not a series of connected scenarios, but one long continuous campaign, fought in weekly or biweekly turns. I personally find this more traditional approach to wargaming more satisfying. Yes, how you perform in an OOB scenario can affect the next scenario’s order of battle, and there are some minor bonuses for completing side quests in OOB, but in SC decisions have more far-reaching impact. Do you conduct SeaLion or not? Do you invest in research and production geared toward amphibious warfare, or instead in heavy tanks for Barbarossa? Do you take Norway and the Balkans? Commit German assets to North Africa? Try to take Malta or Gibraltar? Invest in U-boats? Invest in diplomacy to try to align Spain or Romania, or to slow US entry into the war?
On the other hand, OOB and PC are more likely to scratch your tactical or operational-level warfare itch. A given OOB scenario probably has more counters on the map than SC does at game start. I think. Your units likely can move more hexes in a single turn in OOB, so you have more of a feel of maneuver.
On the other other hand, if you’re after realism, I think SC compares favorably to the OOB-style games. SC models supply somewhat more realistically, for example. SC has HQs and HQ attachments (which the game automates for you by default, but which you can control manually); PC and OOB don’t, really. SC has tech research; OOB sort of does, but it’s mostly a matter of deciding which units to upgrade. SC features production delay (by default – you can toggle it off), so a unit you build today won’t show up for weeks or months, depending on how big an investment it is.
Anyway, I like both the OOB games and this one, but they scratch different itches. OOB entranced me for several weeks, so that’s a tough act to follow! I haven’t played the Wastelands Interactive games, so I can’t comment on those.
The Strategic Command games are superficially similar to the Wastelands Interactive games, but have always been more “serious” and less “beer and pretzel,” for the most part.
This one looks tempting but there’s a fair amount that still awaits the first big patch. Some of the useful UI elements are missing still–right-click menu options, apparently some of the hover-over hex data, stuff like that–and multiplayer is totally absent until the first big patch. None of that is crucial, but if you want to wait it would not be illogical.
Apparently there were a couple of updates that completely reworked city management, raiders, added more tactical options etc, making for a better game.
I bought it at release and was disappointed enough at the lack of progress to get a refund, but for 6 magic beans I’m willing to give it another shot.
Dumb question - is Strategic Command I go/you go? Or do all sides plan their orders and then execute simultaneously? I saw the product page said “turn based” but wasn’t sure how to read that. Thanks.
IGO/UGO
Not only started but on a forced march to Jan 8.
I’ve been waiting for Decisive Campaigns:Barbarossa to go on sale. It has, down to $33, but I want to wait and see what the rest of the sales do to my wallet. I may have to wait for a paycheck or two to grab it.
Good price on Command: MANO/Northern Inferno.
Remember to check your Slitherine/Matrix registration date, guys, in case you’re due an anniversary coupon soon.
I remember thinking last year that I might as well wait until this year’s sale.
I think I’ll wait until next year.
My favorite war game this year, Victory & Glory - Napoleon is only $20, and the sadly-overlooked Viet Nam '65 is $5.
Both well-worth grabbing if you don’t have them already.
Just came here to ask for suggestions. Love, love, love Order of Battle, but I don’t have a lot of Matrix stuff, anything else I should pick up?
(I don’t like the really deep stuff, but a step above beer & pretzels is nice.)
Do you have Unity of Command?
If not BUY IT NOW!
Nope, been eyeing it, but for $8, I can’t pass it up now.
Buy all campaigns. It is one of my favorite games of the last decade.
Starships Unlimited is a steal at that price y’all.