Matrix Games Forums

2 week turns. I just hate that time scale for games like this. I have the same issue with SC: World at War. Hubert (the designer) made a mod to make it weekly turns which made the game much better inho.

SC: War in Europe had variable turns which took some getting used to but really thought it worked well once I did. Weekly turns in the 'good' weather turns, longer in the rest.

I know this has to come from Marketing since it seems like game design has to be "we want people to complete a game in X time so how long should a turn be?"

The real war lasted about 240 weeks so apparently 240 turns is too long for a game.

I know the editor can make the turns weekly, but you have to do much more than that. You need to:
- half the op points for every unit
- half the resource gains, including research
- double the production time of all the units
- half the strategic move range or keep the range and double the cost

So changing the time scale is not an easy task to accomplish. I actually did most of this for WaW but stopped at reducing the AP points as that would have been more work than what I wanted to put into it.

Since I already bought one game with a two week time scale and really hated it, I see no reason to do so again.

I'm glad the game is doing well and people are enjoying it. But it is just not for me.

Now if someone does a good mod that does the work needed above with weekly turn, I may change my mind. Even better if it is the designer that does it [:)] But until then I will pass.

I am really interested in knowing why you hate two-week turns. Do you have any important reason for this?

I believe that if everything is proportionally correct in relation to the length of the turn (production, action points, research, etc.), there should be no objection to the duration of the turn other than an arbitrary personal preference. Just curious.

That said, I prefer one week turns too because I like the scenarios with more number of turns, and because it would look even more like my beloved SPI WiE. But that doesn't stop me from enjoying this great Warplan.

This seems like a particularly weird and nitpicky reason to skip an amazing game, but hey, tastes vary.

Half the op points on all units might well turn this into a WW1 game given the various movement costs.

SC - WAW two weeks turns are different. I believe how that works is:
January 1 - 14th German Turn
January 15 - 30th Allied Turn

So really a 'turn' is closer to a month. 12 turns per player per year

Warplan is more like
January 1 - 14th German Turn
January 1 - 14th Allied Turn

24 turns per player per year, so twice as many as SC WAW. I suppose it would be fairly easy for the designer to change it so that it was like the Germans get Jan 1-7 and the Allies 8-14, but that's just cosmetic.


Honestly the turn pace seems just about right for the game.

ORIGINAL: Fintilgin

SC - WAW two weeks turns are different. I believe how that works is:
January 1 - 14th German Turn
January 15 - 30th Allied Turn

So really a 'turn' is closer to a month. 12 turns per player per year

Warplan is more like
January 1 - 14th German Turn
January 1 - 14th Allied Turn

24 turns per player per year, so twice as many as SC WAW. I suppose it would be fairly easy for the designer to change it so that it was like the Germans get Jan 1-7 and the Allies 8-14, but that's just cosmetic.


Honestly the turn pace seems just about right for the game.

Fair point. I made the assumption that it was more like WaW versus a 'standard' turn based system. That actually might help quite a bit. I still would have preferred one week turns as I feel it provides a better granularity to these games.

Now if it was on Steam , I'd definitely buy it, play it up to the refund limit and then make a decision on to keep or not. Too bad Matrix does not have a policy like that, but I understand it is a lot of work to do something like that.

[/quote]
Now if it was on Steam , I'd definitely buy it, play it up to the refund limit and then make a decision on to keep or not. Too bad Matrix does not have a policy like that, but I understand it is a lot of work to do something like that.
[/quote]

There is plenty of info about the game here and on YouTube which allows one to make an informed decision about a purchase also which, in the end, is a personal decision. The question then becomes does it really matter if you decide to purchase or not?

In general no amount of videos will give the same vibe as playing a game.
I am personally fond of the old fashioned demos, that by now are non existant.

ORIGINAL: Duck Doc

ORIGINAL: Numdydar

Now if it was on Steam , I'd definitely buy it, play it up to the refund limit and then make a decision on to keep or not. Too bad Matrix does not have a policy like that, but I understand it is a lot of work to do something like that.

There is plenty of info about the game here and on YouTube which allows one to make an informed decision about a purchase also which, in the end, is a personal decision. The question then becomes does it really matter if you decide to purchase or not?

It actually could matter since Matrix would not be getting my money and by proxy the developer would not either.

But It should not matter to anyone else if I buy or not. Just expressing my thoughts and opinions as you are.

I have watched videos, read reviews, obviously following this forum , etc. but those just not do it for me. Very rarely have I bought anything from just watching a video.

So I will just wait and see how the game evolves.

Personally, what I like in a WW2 game (strategic or operational) is to compare my pace to the historical pace of operations. I have seen that some players have succeeded to do Poland in one turn i.e. two weeks. But in any case two turns, as historical, seems to be the norm.

Now, the "strange defeat" that is always hard to do at the same pace than historically. Fall Gelb has started on May 10th 1940. The sea was reached by German 19th corps on May 20th 1940. So in term of game turns, this is one turn. Anyone was able to do this in one single turn? I bet none was able to do it.

The main reason from my point of view: no stacking. Design decision, understood.

The French strategy was an 'all or nothing' gamble that leds the allies armies to rush for the Germans in Belgium. As such, there was no strategic reserve behind the front line. Funny enough, this cannot occur within this game since the Belgium army prevents the French and the BEF to enter in Belgium. So, the strategic reserve is intact. The AI is safe.

In order for one player to achieve this pace in this game, does one week turn instead of two would have done the trick?

It's an open question, do not see any criticism of the game.

I have bought a lot of games from Matrix/ Slitherine and I don't recall any instance of a demo available before purchase but I could be wrong about this. My understanding has been that Matrix does not do demos or offer refunds. Steam does allow a short time to try out a game but the decision to put a game on Steam is Slitherine's to make and may not make financial sense for this game, compared to, for example, Command (CMANO).

I buy all my games now from Matrix and get the Steam key to use.

This is my point: I doubt there will be any change in policy here about demos and refunds and it has already been said that the game is not coming out on Steam anytime in the foreseeable future. We all know this and most of us accept this reality.

I am going to purchase tomorrow (Nov 1st = new budget cycle for games - too many games and so few cycles- just sayin'...), warts and all. Got to love the game concept and implementation. I am getting very excited! This may indeed turn out to be the strategy game I have wanted someone to conjure up, lo these many years.

Well Steam's Halloween sale busted my budget lol. So another reason to wait awhile.

Its very addictive it has that "just one more turn" feel.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Its very addictive it has that "just one more turn" feel.

Yeah, this is VERY true. Despite the current AI flaws it kept me up past midnight two nights in a row so I could just pull off whatever I had planned 'next turn' again and again.

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

Now, the "strange defeat" that is always hard to do at the same pace than historically. Fall Gelb has started on May 10th 1940. The sea was reached by German 19th corps on May 20th 1940. So in term of game turns, this is one turn. Anyone was able to do this in one single turn? I bet none was able to do it.

No one? I still wonder if this is achievable or not?

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
I still wonder if this is achievable or not?

Maybe. If the variables of resources, capabilities, intentions, time, space, and purpose all align as they did in 1940--for both sides...maybe it's achievable in WarPlan. Dunno. I'm about to see what happens in my first adventure into France 1940. I do know in advance that I have set a different table than the historical one.

It is really hard to make a exact historical outcome of a WWII game where the player or the AI very seldom makes so big mistakes that took place hiostorical for various reason.
Mostly because of the far better overview and control a game gives a player and AI,

That said for fun I decided to try it out and make objective was Calais the port at sea. I did manage to do this in one turn by allocating all my bombers and tanks with the main objective towards getting to the sea,
I even managed to get the BEF forther into the land due to this. But then after this action I would not been able to get Paris at end june I think.

It is harder to defeat France in this game but then it is also by far easier to be prepared for it as Axis when it comes to unit bought and using during the attack so I reckon it is balanced in those terms.
For me it is not really important to make a game historical either. After all I want to change the "history" and a game of this magnitude will never be historical in any sense since it is just not possible to make it so.

ORIGINAL: Zovs

Its very addictive it has that "just one more turn" feel.

This...agreed that this is an amazing game

If you enjoy playing PBEM, you might wait for an upcoming patch just to have a more polished product, but in the long term it is a must buy.

ORIGINAL: bcgames

Maybe. If the variables of resources, capabilities, intentions, time, space, and purpose all align as they did in 1940--for both sides...maybe it's achievable in WarPlan. Dunno. I'm about to see what happens in my first adventure into France 1940. I do know in advance that I have set a different table than the historical one.

Please let me know how it goes. [&o]

ORIGINAL: Worg64

It is really hard to make a exact historical outcome of a WWII game where the player or the AI very seldom makes so big mistakes that took place hiostorical for various reason.
Mostly because of the far better overview and control a game gives a player and AI,

That said for fun I decided to try it out and make objective was Calais the port at sea. I did manage to do this in one turn by allocating all my bombers and tanks with the main objective towards getting to the sea,
I even managed to get the BEF forther into the land due to this. But then after this action I would not been able to get Paris at end june I think.

It is harder to defeat France in this game but then it is also by far easier to be prepared for it as Axis when it comes to unit bought and using during the attack so I reckon it is balanced in those terms.
For me it is not really important to make a game historical either. After all I want to change the "history" and a game of this magnitude will never be historical in any sense since it is just not possible to make it so.

I know this is hard for such strategic game to keep the historical pace.

I have tried with:
. CEAW Gold - never been able to keep the race to the sea pace
. Strategic Command WWII War in Europe - never been able to keep the race to the sea pace

For the first time, I am seeing a game that may achieve the historical pace.
Why are you not able to take Paris end of June? Too much attrition?

Thanks