It's July 2023 convince me CO2 is better than CO1

[Tankgirl]

It's not the money. I buy what I want.
I have CO1 Battles From the Bulge. Convince me CO2 is so much better. Examples required.

I also own Gary's War in the East 1, but not War in the East 2. I don't automatically buy the latest versions of games.

I'm interested in the Bulge DLC for CO2 if I'm interested at all.
But why would I buy them is the question, if I have Battles from the Bulge.

I'm going to disregard any comments that don't offer a real considered opinion.
I don't mind reading. I'm a writer myself.

I can find 100 bucks for a game if I want it. But I'm not going to spend it 'just because', give me a reason.

I understand there has been a lot of work put into CO2.
Sooooo, why should that impress me?

[jimcarravallah]

Originally posted by Tankgirl:

It's not the money. I buy what I want.
I have CO1 Battles From the Bulge. Convince me CO2 is so much better. Examples required.

I also own Gary's War in the East 1, but not War in the East 2. I don't automatically buy the latest versions of games.

I'm interested in the Bulge DLC for CO2 if I'm interested at all.
But why would I buy them is the question, if I have Battles from the Bulge.

I'm going to disregard any comments that don't offer a real considered opinion.
I don't mind reading. I'm a writer myself.

I can find 100 bucks for a game if I want it. But I'm not going to spend it 'just because', give me a reason.

I understand there has been a lot of work put into CO2.
Sooooo, why should that impress me?

You can try CO2 for free, no restraints except there are a limited number of free scenarios released with the free trial version.

Invest some time in free game play, and you can tell us what you think, free of charge.

[𝘛𝘏𝘌 Pepsi MAN]

Yo

[AJB]

wibble

[Tankgirl]

"You can try CO2 for free, no restraints except there are a limited number of free scenarios released with the free trial version."

Wow, thanks for that captain obvious. I have the free option, I've played it a few times. So what.

The request is convince me CO2's paid content is worth it.

I'm so glad the other two comments were offered. Not sure what I'd do without Yo and wibble.

Is this the degree of enthusiasm I can expect at this time?

[jimcarravallah]

Originally posted by Tankgirl:

"You can try CO2 for free, no restraints except there are a limited number of free scenarios released with the free trial version."

Wow, thanks for that captain obvious. I have the free option, I've played it a few times. So what.

Well, I'd question whether one would notice a difference in scenarios if an evaluation of each core game module results in an assessment of "so what?"

The request is convince me CO2's paid content is worth it.

. . . and the answer was "try it yourself, and tell us what you think."

The marketing strategy for the game was set years ago when CO2 was released -- offer them a chance to evaluate the improvements to the game engine, and offer users a larger diversity of scenarios to experience an operational level simulation with different geography, at start situations and force structures than were offered in the original game.

The scenarios offer enhanced map attributes that support the refined combat, movment and supply support models, more refinded force structures (for the history buffs), and more accurate reflections of weapons distribution and combat capabilities for the force structures.

So, the decision to buy paid content is based on the user's desire for realism, historical accuracy and an interest in exploring tactical solutions in a larger variety of terrain types and battle set-ups.

I'm so glad the other two comments were offered. Not sure what I'd do without Yo and wibble.

Might be that's how seriously they took your dismissive question.

Is this the degree of enthusiasm I can expect at this time?

There's apparently enough or the game wouldn't be offered for sale.

The developers are working on an update to the attack organization and prosecution code under the combat module.

it's been in the works for a long time, but feedback on its progress indicates it will eliminate anomolies in operation under the current attack code.

[Tankgirl]

"The marketing strategy for the game was set years ago when CO2 was released -- offer them a chance to evaluate the improvements to the game engine, and offer users a larger diversity of scenarios to experience an operational level simulation with different geography, at start situations and force structures than were offered in the original game.

The scenarios offer enhanced map attributes that support the refined combat, movment and supply support models, more refinded force structures (for the history buffs), and more accurate reflections of weapons distribution and combat capabilities for the force structures.

So, the decision to buy paid content is based on the user's desire for realism, historical accuracy and an interest in exploring tactical solutions in a larger variety of terrain types and battle set-ups.

plus

The developers are working on an update to the attack organization and prosecution code under the combat module.

it's been in the works for a long time, but feedback on its progress indicates it will eliminate anomolies in operation under the current attack code."

Was that so hard?

"Might be that's how seriously they took your dismissive question."

Well thank goodness my interest is soooo valuable.

My life will go on without this game eh.
The real question is will this hobby go on after my demographic disappears.
Indications are it won't.

When people say 'wargame' most react as if the person was referencing Call of Duty.
No one I talk to has ever heard of the companies that make our hobby's titles.

When I say wargame, I usually mean Avalon Hill and SPI. And I usually mean cardboard counters and paper maps.

[tommy.w]

Twice jimcaravallah has tried to help you and on both occasions you have treated him with contempt.
Its a really poor reflection on you as a person and completely unnecessary.

[jimcarravallah]

Originally posted by Tankgirl:

"The marketing strategy for the game was set years ago when CO2 was released -- offer them a chance to evaluate the improvements to the game engine, and offer users a larger diversity of scenarios to experience an operational level simulation with different geography, at start situations and force structures than were offered in the original game.

The scenarios offer enhanced map attributes that support the refined combat, movment and supply support models, more refinded force structures (for the history buffs), and more accurate reflections of weapons distribution and combat capabilities for the force structures.

So, the decision to buy paid content is based on the user's desire for realism, historical accuracy and an interest in exploring tactical solutions in a larger variety of terrain types and battle set-ups.

plus

The developers are working on an update to the attack organization and prosecution code under the combat module.

it's been in the works for a long time, but feedback on its progress indicates it will eliminate anomolies in operation under the current attack code."

Was that so hard?

It's how I would answer an honest question.

Relating how accomplished you are in wargaming and your military backgtound before demanding the answer meet your poorly defined criteria indicates you were looking for an argument rather than honestly seeking information.

"Might be that's how seriously they took your dismissive question."

Well thank goodness my interest is soooo valuable.

They might be following you around. Neither has shown up in this thread until you posted.

My life will go on without this game eh.

In my professional career I had the opportunity to support an operational level DoD training simulation program that used massive amounts of computing power to address the same issues this game addresses as a commercially-released product.

It's apparent in your military career, you hadn't envountered such a simulation particuklary when you cite relatively immature programs as your favorite games.

The real question is will this hobby go on after my demographic disappears.
Indications are it won't.

Perhaps. A lot depends on whether game players seek intellectual stimulation or the rush of inflicting shoot 'em up mayhem on targets.

When people say 'wargame' most react as if the person was referencing Call of Duty.
No one I talk to has ever heard of the companies that make our hobby's titles.

Panther Games has been around better than 30 years.

When I say wargame, I usually mean Avalon Hill and SPI. And I usually mean cardboard counters and paper maps.

My first wargame was the initial release pf AH's Gettysburg back when I was 10- or 12-years old.

I folliowed that with Tactics II for a taste of WWII-era strategic combat.

At one point as I accumulated more AH titles, I realized all the rules about intel, line of sight, movement and combat could be programmed on a computer with graphical display capabilities.

I was working on means to do that when I ran across the PC-hosted wargames and discovered someone already had begun addressing the problem.

I became a fan of the Command Ops system when I discovered it not only addressed typical combat activities, but also took into account command and control, supply, and troop health dynamics in pursuing a combat simulation.

[Tankgirl]

"Relating how accomplished you are in wargaming and your military backgtound before demanding the answer meet your poorly defined criteria indicates you were looking for an argument rather than honestly seeking information."

I looked, yep, at no point did I reference anything to do with myself.

I'm not new to Panthers Games. I found them when they released Highway to the Reich quite some while ago.

As for myself, yes, those that know me know I've been a wargamer in some fashion for a long time. Since the 70s.
But to go and put words in my mouth I never said in this thread is a bit much.

I wanted someone to give me a reasoned comment in support of getting the current software.
All I have managed to obtain is indications I wouldn't want play a wargame against the persons in this thread.

I am on record out there in many places I suppose as saying This game has the best simulation of command on the commercial market for casual public software for WW2.
I won't comment on modern era simulations as I have not experienced them.

As for personal military background, I was 031 RCR in the 70s. I was young, and stupid and unemployed. I'd have rather been teaching archaeological history and or geography.

[Thucydides]

OP I am telling this not to insult you but as a genuine attempt to help you out, you are coming across as pretty high-handed and living up to the negative stereotypes of grognards. When in reality most of us are a friendly bunch, I am sure you are too, but the way you've written your answers comes across as pretty aloof. For example don't say "I will ignore any comments I consider dumb" type stuff, just ignore the comments that aren't worth your time. I know technically you're not but naturally people get more defensive, and less keen to help, if they feel someone is judging them rather than asking for their help or opinion. You can say 'that's a dumb attitude' but it's how people work and you'll get further taking into account than ignoring it.

Please take this as advice, if I wanted to insult you I'd call you names instead of politely try to point out how you're coming across.

As for actually helping you I imagine a lot of people, like me, have little to no experience with CO1 which makes it hard for them to compare and contrast the game. I googled it for you though and this thread came up

https://www.reddit.com/r/computerwargames/comments/ui77ka/command_ops_1_vs_command_ops_2/

Also I'd note look how the OP asks for more info from someone who didn't fully answer their question

"Also, I would be SO grateful if you tell me more about your comparative impressions of both CO1 and CO2."

And this comment sums up the limit of my knowledge on CO1 vs CO2

"CO2 also has all of the scenarios from earlier games like COTE. It also has unique new scenarios like Westwall that are good.

What CO2 has mainly been updated with is better AI that can plan, setup attacks and coordinate. There is a major patch in the works for this that will release with the new DLC Bradley at Bay. Hopefully this year!"

So basically better AI, less bugs, still being worked on (allbeit slowly), some scenarios availble for 2 that aren't available for 1.

I also found this thread

https://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/scenarios-command-ops-1-vs-2.4659/

which also says

" The big benefit of CO2 was implementation of an improved combat system than was available with the CO1 engine and regular updates being made available to build on that."

and about the scenarios

"All the CO1 commercially designed scenarios were reviewed and most updated for CO2. "

and

"CO2 scenarios have been improved compared to CO1."

But I can't find a direct comparison. I assume just general updates regarding historical accuracy. But the CO2 scenarios represent the latest and most up-to-date version of the scenarios.

Here is a dev talking about some changes between CO1 and CO2 (mainly UI stuff)

https://forums.lnlpublishing.com/threads/co2-changes.1010/

Also worth noting the DLC do go on sale. When they are all on offer it is a big saving and goes from feeling expensive (although still not *that* expensive by wargame standards) to feeling very very good value for money imo.

Hope that helps you make an informed choice. And please take my point about how you approached asking for help as constructive advice and not an insult.

[Ubiquitous]

Big disappointment that a better upgrade path wasn't on the table for those who had spent £00s buying every scenario pack for CO1, only to have them all obsoleted in favour of almost the exact same scenarios in CO2. Perhaps PG made some money selling the same scenarios to a bunch of people twice. But they surely also lost out from the loyal custom of all those people they alienated through this move. There's certainly at lease one such individual.

[jimcarravallah]

Originally posted by Ubiquitous:

Big disappointment that a better upgrade path wasn't on the table for those who had spent £00s buying every scenario pack for CO1, only to have them all obsoleted in favour of almost the exact same scenarios in CO2.

The scenario packs aren't "almost the same." Some share the same name because they reflect a theatre of war that the scenario module covers, broadly Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge / Wacht am Rhein, North Africa before the American invasion, and Greece / Medterranean before the invasion os Sicily.

Each new CO2 module comes with more scenarios than those available in CO1 and each scenario is built with a higher degree of complexity and variability than those built for CO1.

Perhaps PG made some money selling the same scenarios to a bunch of people twice. But they surely also lost out from the loyal custom of all those people they alienated through this move. There's certainly at lease one such individual.

The fact is, the original scenarios weren't compatible with the new game engine in CO2. The developers made the choice between charging for the conversion to the new game engine or marketing the engine's improvements and charging for the new variety of scenario packs that were supported by it.

You can play the new game for free, and if you want to explore it in more theaters of war than the three basic scenarios cover, you can purchase the scenario packs for those theaters.

The only games I've seen that offer new core engine play for free time out after about 10-minutes of play and announce the price for the complete game in an ad.

[Restinshade]

Originally posted by Ubiquitous:

Big disappointment that a better upgrade path wasn't on the table for those who had spent £00s buying every scenario pack for CO1, only to have them all obsoleted in favour of almost the exact same scenarios in CO2. Perhaps PG made some money selling the same scenarios to a bunch of people twice. But they surely also lost out from the loyal custom of all those people they alienated through this move. There's certainly at lease one such individual.

Devs have to eat too. Frankly I’m amazed that they offer the base game for free.