Rating: 
Summary: There is really no strategy involved
Review: This game offer a tremendous amount of options on how to play the game, but offers very little overall strategy. There is really no way off truely developing an effective strategy. Units that provide artilery are basically non-effective. Air units seem to get crushed by other air units of equal strenght. Lacks any pre-battle set-up options. Does offer some interesting battles, and plenty of information. A little hard to truely understand. Would be better if there was a tuitorial installed.
Rating: 
Summary: Good ROI for anyone.
Review: This game really does have it all. If you are a hardcore strategy gamer, you simply cannot get anything better then this: it's what a lot of people have been dreaming about.
That said, they are plenty of rave reviews on this page, who can spell out the good stuff in exhaustive detail. Let me tell you about the downsides.
This game is NOT to difficult to come to grips with, anyone can pick up the basics pretty quickly. However, it is SLOW. The computer resolves moves in minutes, and you better have something else on hand to do while you wait and ponder. For those of use who don't plan on spending an entire night in front of the box ('specially after a day of it at the office), that is a serious (the most serious) downside. The scenarios are simply too big. The Grenada 1984 scenario, recommended previously as a good intro into the game (absolutely true), is sadly alone in smallish, tactical level engagements. Everything else seems to be about Division and Corps level action, with dozens (if not even hundreds!) of counters to control. For me personally, that's a little too much most of the time.
What this game needs is simple: MORE TACTICAL SCENARIOS. Basically anything you can play in an hour flat. Hopefully, some of the gognards that pump out new scenarios on the web will understand this and make some more tactical (instead theater) scenarios.
All this said, the game is definetly worth the price. Some of the larger scenarios (i.e. Korea 1999) are certainly playable on their own right, if you have the time. Also, it's simply a GREAT PRODUCT with incredible attention to detail. The only downside to this product is simply, that for some of us, it can simply be a little too much like work sometimes. But only sometimes. Buy this product.
Rating: 
Summary: Grognards rejoice!
Review: This game would be a bargain at twice the price- why, you ask? Because almost every cardboard chit and paper map game simulating operational 20th century warfare you would normally shell out 30-50 bucks for is included in this game. Can't find the specific battle you want? Still can't find that elusive scenario? Then break out the books and design it yourself using the game's scenario editor with its massive equiment database- it's a lot of fun and you'll be surprised how much you'll learn. The game is actually a great learing tool in and of itself- want to find out why Operation Market/Garden turned out the way it did? Want to find out why the American focus on logistics in WWII wasn't really such a bad idea? This game is not only fun to play, but can be used to supplement more traditional means of learning (it's great to read about a battle as you play). Every aspect of each battle is carefully rendered- unit organization, logistics, fatigue, air support, interdiction, naval power, morale, weather, terrain, fog of war, random events, nuclear and chemical weapons- this is a game not only for the hobbyist, but for the serious historian. Century of Warfare is a proven game system with numerous players (and potential email opponents) world-wide. If you prefer depth of simulation over eye candy, then this is a game for you.
Rating:
Summary: Exciting Total Management of Warfare, Yet AI ...
Review: This has been the most challenging strategy games I played so far. For human player side, its weight on logistics and balance between the overall control vs. local concentration, and tradeoff between occupation of strategic locations(either defined by the score or simply indeed by the battle condition) vs. destruction of enemy forces(/conservation of friendly forces) --- is very well designed and applausible. The only setback I felt is the AI of my computer opponent: it is too conservative and hence easy to be outflanked(and then be encircled and destroyed if you have locally superior force). The game is still challenging but that comes from the management of your own resources as I mentioned before. I would appreciate a better AI. (for example, the AI of Close Combat II - A Bridge Too Far was good and aggressive.)
Rating:
Summary: Great game but a little complex
Review: This is the latest package of the "Operational Art of Warfare" from Norm Koger and Talonsoft. Unlike earlier Norm Koger offerings (all fantastic) this one models warfare at a larger overall level, such as a theater level. The game itself is very minutely modeled and complex. It is somewhat difficult to get into as you simply can't fire it up and start moving units around. The map interface is full of dozens of controls for micromanaging your forces. There is no "tutorial" campaign nor is there a tutorial in the manual, which is not very instructionally written. However, the game itself is very well made once you learn how to play it. After you get past the learning curve, you will find a construction set, quite a few highly detailed included campaigns, and lots more stuff to be downloaded off the internet. The graphics are not over glittery and distracting (and they have different levels of display options to suit your tastes). The resolution phases of combat are highly detailed and modeled, and the AI may not be Napoleon but you're going to have to work for your victories. And furthermore, since the game sports several multiplayer options, you can face the most difficult adversary of all: That buddy of yours who pleads ignorance of wargames and whipes you from the map in six turns! This is a true wargamer's delight. A bit complex and with a longer learning curve, but a must have for armchair generals.
Rating:
Summary: Great game but a little complex
Review: This is the latest package of the "Operational Art of Warfare" from Norm Koger and Talonsoft. Unlike earlier Norm Koger offerings (all fantastic) this one models warfare at a larger overall level, such as a theater level. The game itself is very minutely modeled and complex. It is somewhat difficult to get into as you simply can't fire it up and start moving units around. The map interface is full of dozens of controls for micromanaging your forces. There is no "tutorial" campaign nor is there a tutorial in the manual, which is not very instructionally written. However, the game itself is very well made once you learn how to play it. After you get past the learning curve, you will find a construction set, quite a few highly detailed included campaigns, and lots more stuff to be downloaded off the internet. The graphics are not over glittery and distracting (and they have different levels of display options to suit your tastes). The resolution phases of combat are highly detailed and modeled, and the AI may not be Napoleon but you're going to have to work for your victories. And furthermore, since the game sports several multiplayer options, you can face the most difficult adversary of all: That buddy of yours who pleads ignorance of wargames and whipes you from the map in six turns! This is a true wargamer's delight. A bit complex and with a longer learning curve, but a must have for armchair generals.
Rating:
Summary: The ulitmate compilation of The Operational Art of War
Review: This title combines all of previous "The Operational Art of War" titles into one box. This means it includes scenarios spanning the entire 20th century as well as future scenarios. This game can be daunting in learning how to effectively command your units, but starting with the smaller scenarios will help get you up to speed.
Rating:
Summary: Eulogy to a great wargame series
Review: This was the last and ultimate compilation using the "Operational Art of War" system, combining scenarios mostly culled from TOAW I (1939-1955) and TOAW II (1956-2000). This series was a major development in operational level war games, particularly in its faithfulness to detailed orders of battle and weapons capabilities. Its successor is Matrix's "Korsun Pocket." I started playing board wargames in the early 1970s, starting with Avalon Hill standards like "Blitzkrieg", "D-Day" and "Anzio." These were revolutionary, but had little solitaire playability. Leaving the carefully assembled cardboard squares lying on a table or bed was risky and apt to get messed up by someone's kid brother or Mom's vacuum cleaner. By college, I lacked the time to invest in SPI's "monster" games with thousands of counters. Computer wargames are wonderful, setting up in seconds. I never liked the old forty page rulebooks which changed with each game and the increasingly complex CRT charts, which meant that some wargames truly approached "real time" - it took a real day to play a day's turn of combat. Who needs it? Designer Norm Koger instead decided to create a one-size-fits-all engine capable of simulating nearly any land battle in the 20th century. To melt the heart of grognards everywhere, he spent as much time creating a usable and intuitive scenario editor which, between 1997 and say, 2002, allowed the creation of literally hundreds of downloadable scenarios off the web. It was like having every SPI issue since the 1970s and then some, for free. The challenge with computer wargames is AI, AI, AI, since the vast majority of games are solitaire. Gary Grigsby developed two great strategic-operational games in the early 1990s - "War in Russia" and "Pacific War", but the primitive AI back then was just not nearly up to it. Inevitably, the Russians would obliging part a 100 mile wide gap for your tanks to slip through, and my God, modeling just the naval part of the Pacific War was a feat. (To my knowledge, no one since has tried a commercial simulation of the Pacific War combining both naval warfare and operational-sized land units). The TOAW series concentrated on land campaigns. As Norm Koger freely admitted, naval and air units were not fully modeled. The games employed an "order of battle" framework, literally counting weapon systems in a given company, battalion, regiment or division. (In its later incarnations, the computer literally kept track of each "shot" fired by each armored vehicle). Then proficiency, supply state, fatigue, and cohesion are included, but most of this goes on in deep background which you can chose to manipulate or ignore. Some of the TOAW scenarios (particularly those developed by Koger himself, like Korea 1950 and Cuba 1962) were great, but the game actually suffered, I think, from a surfeit of scenarios that were not so great or were just too imbalanced - which could have resulted from assiduous fealty to exact orders of battle. The biggest problem was the computer AI, which often insisted on moving dug in units, staging suicide assaults, and incomprehensibly withdrawing from valuable objectives. Carefully employed, McArthur's 1941 army could keep a sloppy Japanese invasion force pinned to the beaches. (But Crete - now that's a challenge, a Rubrik's cube of a scenario pitting tiny German paratroop companies against far numerous Allied forces). The sheer variety and opportunity to play obscure battles as Nomanhan or the Italian invasion of Greece without forking over $12 to $30 for a single game was terrific. These were serious wargames, and graphics were pretty basic. (My kids derisively refer to these as "little squares" games.) But they were a huge leap forward, and grognards owe Mr. Koger a huge debt. If the system is ever matched to a state of the art AI, the reborn series would be amazing. Norm, are you listening?
Rating:
Summary: Eulogy to a great wargame series
Review: This was the last and ultimate compilation using the "Operational Art of War" system, combining scenarios mostly culled from TOAW I (1939-1955) and TOAW II (1956-2000). This series was a major development in operational level war games, particularly in its faithfulness to detailed orders of battle and weapons capabilities. Its successor is Matrix's "Korsun Pocket." I started playing board wargames in the early 1970s, starting with Avalon Hill standards like "Blitzkrieg", "D-Day" and "Anzio." These were revolutionary, but had little solitaire playability. Leaving the carefully assembled cardboard squares lying on a table or bed was risky and apt to get messed up by someone's kid brother or Mom's vacuum cleaner. By college, I lacked the time to invest in SPI's "monster" games with thousands of counters. Computer wargames are wonderful, setting up in seconds. I never liked the old forty page rulebooks which changed with each game and the increasingly complex CRT charts, which meant that some wargames truly approached "real time" - it took a real day to play a day's turn of combat. Who needs it? Designer Norm Koger instead decided to create a one-size-fits-all engine capable of simulating nearly any land battle in the 20th century. To melt the heart of grognards everywhere, he spent as much time creating a usable and intuitive scenario editor which, between 1997 and say, 2002, allowed the creation of literally hundreds of downloadable scenarios off the web. It was like having every SPI issue since the 1970s and then some, for free. The challenge with computer wargames is AI, AI, AI, since the vast majority of games are solitaire. Gary Grigsby developed two great strategic-operational games in the early 1990s - "War in Russia" and "Pacific War", but the primitive AI back then was just not nearly up to it. Inevitably, the Russians would obliging part a 100 mile wide gap for your tanks to slip through, and my God, modeling just the naval part of the Pacific War was a feat. (To my knowledge, no one since has tried a commercial simulation of the Pacific War combining both naval warfare and operational-sized land units). The TOAW series concentrated on land campaigns. As Norm Koger freely admitted, naval and air units were not fully modeled. The games employed an "order of battle" framework, literally counting weapon systems in a given company, battalion, regiment or division. (In its later incarnations, the computer literally kept track of each "shot" fired by each armored vehicle). Then proficiency, supply state, fatigue, and cohesion are included, but most of this goes on in deep background which you can chose to manipulate or ignore. Some of the TOAW scenarios (particularly those developed by Koger himself, like Korea 1950 and Cuba 1962) were great, but the game actually suffered, I think, from a surfeit of scenarios that were not so great or were just too imbalanced - which could have resulted from assiduous fealty to exact orders of battle. The biggest problem was the computer AI, which often insisted on moving dug in units, staging suicide assaults, and incomprehensibly withdrawing from valuable objectives. Carefully employed, McArthur's 1941 army could keep a sloppy Japanese invasion force pinned to the beaches. (But Crete - now that's a challenge, a Rubrik's cube of a scenario pitting tiny German paratroop companies against far numerous Allied forces). The sheer variety and opportunity to play obscure battles as Nomanhan or the Italian invasion of Greece without forking over $12 to $30 for a single game was terrific. These were serious wargames, and graphics were pretty basic. (My kids derisively refer to these as "little squares" games.) But they were a huge leap forward, and grognards owe Mr. Koger a huge debt. If the system is ever matched to a state of the art AI, the reborn series would be amazing. Norm, are you listening?
|
