安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
I've played every expansion and i enjoy it but .... it's not a real wargame.
PC is a more classic wargame it would be great to start your wargame history with a classic like this one. It could be hard at beginning to figure out every units role but if you know about ww2 history everything would be logic.
I own all 3 games.
First I was a bit disappointed by Strategic War in Europe. Not a bad game at all, but after a first play through to learn the game mechanisms. I find it too easy, as I easily crushed the Soviets then moved through syria to cross Africa north coast from east to west!.
I plan to replay it some time in future. The good things is that it is quite straightforward, actually this is a simplified version of a more complex treatment of WW2 by the same team. But in that case simpler was better. It has most things that you could expect from a entry level strategic wargame, including some politics and reseach, but it lack character and I feel it was too much of a WW2 sandbox, as all elements are there but they didn't works to create a realistic depiction of WW2.
UoC
I see what Skydancer above mean, as the game as some levels of abstraction, however I do think it is a definitely proper wargame. It is a moderate complexity operational level wargame, and as such it is consistant, and somewhat reminiscent of board wargames whixh often focus on simple mechanisms that works well together instead of trying to portray every single details of warfare. It is historically accurate, though not very detailled
It gives a good feel of proper maneuvering tactics and the importance of supply lines, both maintaining yours and cutting the opponents ones. The Game clearly has an above average AI, though it rely on you being the attacker and the AI only play on defense.
The main issue for me is the overall scale, most scenario are a small hence they lack epic feeling of the huge clashes on the eastern front, and the smaller give a puzzle like feeling, as you have few units and a very tight time schedule you have to optimize every move. Yet in both expansions there are larger scenarios (and some very small too) that gives a better feeling of the eastern front large scale battle, In particular the big Moscow scenario in 'Black Turn' is much more satisftying.
Another issue is that the campaign doesn't add a lot from the standalone scenarios. And once you hace completed the camapign without using any extra reinforcement, and made the best score possible there are less replay value, beside MP.
PzC
In contrast PzC is more immersive, more fun, has much more numerous and detailed units. There is a strong focus on developping your forces along campaigns, each units gaining xp and eventually heroes, which add a nice RPG feeling.
It has more content, more replay value, both from the base game. plus there are many high quality mods and many additional DLC campaigns.
The AI is significantly weaker than UoC's one. It is quite good at hitting your weak units if you are not careful. But is doesn't gives a realistic feel of maneuvering. However the scenarios are designed with its limitations in mind and offer some challenge, usually because the AI as much more force than you have.
However IMO PzC is more a game than a simulation of warfare. For example the combat mechanisms are very tactical, altough the game vanilla game portray large scale battles. Moreover the game engine is rather generic, and the scale of untis and hexs may vary a lot from scenarios to scenarios. Overal this lead to some "realism" inconsistencies, and some scenarios are somewhat "light" on history.
It depends on what you mean by "depth". I 'd rather say that PzC has less depth than UoC, as I need less thinking to play PzC and from a mind game point of view I find UoC more chalenging. However, as I said above UoC as shorter contents and most scenarios lack epic feeling.
Well thank you for the very well thought out explanation. You have definitely helped!
Although I have yet to decide, this brought me closer to a decision.
UoC play is focused on strategic level, taing into account the supply. Very hard game with hard AI that will frustrate you and make you hit your head against the wall a few hundred times. Operating in a very tight time schedule makes that some scenarios are a crazy run for it.
PZC on the other hand plays on a tactical level, AI is softer and forgiving, you will have tons of fun with it.
IMHO PZC is more for strategy player or even casual one, while UoC is more for massochistic Grognards that like to be punished by replaying an scenario 20 times to meet the objectives a single time.
Both can be great fun, but it depends on your preferences, I liked them both.
Hopefully War in the West will be better than most when it comes out soon.
My suggestions are to stay away from graphical and animated wargames. Look for those with nato chits and plain maps with not a lot of fluff. Command Ops comes to mind here. The Operational Art of War III (commonly known as TOAW III) probably War in the East though I haven't played it so I can't honestly recommend it or War in the Pacific Admiral's edition. But, most of Gary Grigsby's games are pretty daunting and challenging. Some of the Ageod series of games are good like Ale Jete Est. the roman ancient times wargames. Not too fond of their Early American or Civil war games though. Forge of Freedom is a better civil war game.
Advanced Tactics Gold is pretty good too. Very basic and reminds me a lot of Empire.