How is “Warhammer 40,000: Sanctus Reach”? Looks like an interesting computerized version of tabletop gaming.
Eh, pros and cons it didnt grab me really.
I was a beta tester for Sanctus Reach. It never grabbed me either and I thought they released it with too many problems. Maybe it has improved since then but I did not buy it even with a tester discount.
Panzer Corps always felt like it was puzzle solving, a lot more than my rose tinted glasses thought Panzer General was, so I never bothered with anything else they made from it.
Is the Civil War game any good? The reviews seemed to be mixed.
In my opinion it is though there are complaints that the game engine has not aged well.
Ultimate General or AGEOD’s? Not that I could answer that, but so many wargaming sales going on Steam right now!
From the Slitherine sale:
Any thoughts on this this game? I remember there being a lot of excitement leading up to release and then nothing. The Steam reviews are kind of rough too.
I find the people making those complaints to be baffling. I though Civil War II was painterly in its beauty.
On the other hand, I did find it to be a little on the easy side, once I got to grips with it; I won both sides by 1863 on ‘normal’. You have to be willing to let the AI cheat a lot before it puts up a good fight.
I don’t know if the newest Barbarossa game is the same way, but the designer of the first two entries used a very odd and counter-intuitive method of designating units. It’s been awhile, but the scale was I think regimental/battalion, but the designations on the units were only divisional. And the NATO symbols used were divisional. So you’d get motorized infantry units denoted by the divisional armored division i.d. and NATO symbol, which made it confusing to say the least. I recall the designer was challenged on this decision but really just doubled down on it for some reason. It made it much more difficult to tell at a glance which types of units you were using for attacks, which definitely mattered in the combat system.
I swore these games off after that.
Ultimate General is far more entertaining in my book.
Everything I’ve read seems to suggest that the game is a hard pass: they apparently were aiming for a Paradox-esque fantasy grand strategy game without the necessary resources or design experience, so it plays like a mediocre wargame with awkward diplomatic and political mechanics bolted on top.
Is this about Sovereignty? You may want to be a bit more specific as to which product you are describing.
Correct!
Sorry, forgot to quote the original post - edited appropriately! Just recently registered after a long period of lurking, so I’m still learning the UI.
If you like the AGEOD game engine, you might prefer AGEOD’s Civil War II. Personally I would choose Ultimate General. But it’s all a matter of personal preference.
Civil War II is a grand strategy game. Ultimate General is a battlefield strategy game with a teensy bit of force-building fun on top. Both are very good in their respective genres. In particular, Ultimate General scores very highly on sound design, in my book.
Thanks for the info, that does seem like a pass. That’s too bad since there seemed to be a lot of potential at one point.
How’s War in the West? I’ve seen a lot of commentary regarding the new air system - apparently, it’s rather cryptic - but I feel like I’ve seen far less discussion about the rest of the game, especially compared to War in the East or War in the Pacific.
On a similar note, which, if any, of the WitE DLCs are worth picking up? I get the impression that neither is essential, but Lost Battles is considered to be the more worthwhile of the two?
Also, while it looks like some folks here have tepid feelings toward the Decisive Campaigns series, I’d say check out Barbarossa at the very least. I’ve not played the earlier titles, but I know they tweaked the counters in Barbarossa (e.g., aircraft and artillery support are cards that are played rather than counters on the board), and it’s widely considered to be the best in the series, largely due to some streamlining and the introduction of a political layer. Case Blue is probably the weakest in the series, simply because it lacks the unique multiplayer element of Warsaw to Paris or the political layer of Barbarossa.
Actually, neither. I meant the Gettysburg game that appears to have been released last year. By Shenandoah studios? The style appeals to me but the scores appear to be mixed.
The air war can be a bit obscure, but it is also very interesting to play with and explore what ifs. It is a great sandbox for that. If you have read Richard Atkinson’s trilogy, or the book by C. J. Dick “From Victory to Stalemate”, you will be really itching to try to do “better”. Find a human player, though.
The DLC is pretty good, the 1942-43 North African Campaign is a very strong game in itself.
Over the years the scenarios in Lost Battles are the ones that I have played more. Stalingrad to Berlin and Decision in the Ukraine are also the strongest non campaign games. The GC with Sudden Death rules is a must have, imo.
I would say they are very good entry level operational level war games. Of the three I concur the second was the weakest: it had issues with the map (the German could use the top map border with game breaking results). I find the ruleset and UI, which is essentially that of Advanced Tactics, to be very clunky. Supply is better done in Barbarrosa.
I find that the political layer of Barbarrosa wasn’t that great to be honest. Tacked onto the wrong gameplay “loop” tbh. Very innovative, though, in a genre that avoids obvious and unpleasant questions very often. I found it to be at turns game breaking, at times completely ahistorical. Also I couldn’t help thinking the German side was better thought out and fleshed out. I also took issue with it because I got the impression it was taking at face value the canard that German generals were somehow “victims” of GROFAZ, rather than his minions and accomplices.