Should i buy?

[haki10]

Been reading alot on the forum about this game.

Great fan of WWII games.

Played

Third Reich
Strategic Command 1 & 2
Commander Europe at war
HOI 1 & 2
and other similar games

Cant see anything so far that would make me buy this game.

Actually been waiting for many years for a global WWII game on a division level and with hexes instead of areas. World in Flames looks very promising.

Is there any reason to buy this game or is it pretty much the same as other WWII European theater games?

[sullafelix]

Yes buy it and it is different than the above mentioned games. This is the first computer game of this nature to have a large scale map like you would find in a board wargame. It is somewhat similar to the Strategic command games, for something of a comparision. The other big reason for buying is the support, the company is listening to purchasers and doing updates at a fast rate. I bought it over the weekend and am completely satisfied.

[AZKGungHo]

I'm not so sure you should buy it. I did, and regret it to a degree. The game has a long way to go to really be a decent historical wargame. The AI is HORRIBLE, the graphics ugly, the naval war unplayaable, the OOBs don't seem right either. I also have a hard time not being able to move the the Axis or Allied troops at the same time. You move Germany, then Italy, etc. So coordinating them is very difficult, and they can't attack jointly either.

I realize all or mosts of these things can be fixed, but you might be wise to hold off a while and see what the next few patches bring. At this point that's what I wish I had done. I'm don't mean the game is junk, it's not, and I don't like being so negative, but clearly the game needs a lot of fixing.

Oh and one more thing - how about English spelling of the city names just added to the map? I love having the names, but some of them are a little hard to recognize.

[haki10]

thanks for the advice.

Think i'll wait and see how this game will turn out after patches.

Dont want to sound negative. Think its nice that somebody is still making turn based games with decent strategy. Its been many years since i got enough of RTS.

Still think that the PC version of Third Reich is one of the best WWII strategy game around. Which is odd because the game was made in 1994 if i remember correctly and its strange that nobody came up with a better game in 14 years. Given the change in technology, better computers etc..

Even though HOI 1 was a good game i still hate the RT element. HOI 2 was more like a patch to the old game with extremely simple and useless graphic. Even worse than in the previous game.

Gary Grigsby World at War was and still is a good game. But when they realeased World at War a World divided i think they ruined alot for themselfs. It was presented as a new game but was in fact just a big patch on the old game with extra screen shots and graphic.

So i am naturally getting pretty tired of buying the same game in different boxes under different names.

[Sgt.Fury25]

I would wait.I also bought the game and it does need further work.When the patches catch up to make the game excellent then go for it.Right now its not bad but needs work.

[Redmarkus5]

I bought it and I no longer play it.  The game has potential but was released too early and has many issues.  Third Reich was better as a strategic game and TOAW III is still much, much better in terms of representing WW2 at the operational level.  A TOAW III-type engine with an economic and diplomatic model - now that would be a great game IMO.

[Widell]

If you go down that path, why not a WitP naval engine, TOAW ground engine, Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich air engine, and then some combination of game engines to cover diplomacy, production, economics, manpower, spies and intelligence you name it.

Problem is, this will never happen. Why? The game will be too complex for almost anyone to play, and that is provided someone would manage to develop it. Any game you go for will have its pro's and con's. The example of TOAW is due to the fact TOAW was designed with the operational warfare in focus, and hence most of the other stuff was abstracted to be represented by theater options or events. RTW obviosuly has made another choice and so the game is a compromise between the opertational warfare and the other stuff.

[LarryP]

It's interesting to read these unhappy posts. I bought the game a week before the first patch. I'm considered extremely picky with games that are released before being patched correctly.

Recently I have been playing SC1, SC2, and Grigsby's War Between The States. From the first time I loaded this game up, I have had nothing but fun. For me this was just another Matrix game that still needed some patches and input from the gaming community. Oh well. After 30+ Matrix games I'm used to this. Did they patch the snot out of SC2? Yes. That's the game this keeps getting compared to, but before the 1.08 patch, it had problems yet most everybody hails that game in every way.

I find no fault in the AI, it works just fine. This is a fun game and I can't really tell you why. It just is. It's different than all of the WW2 games available now, and I like that part. The developers are working fast at making the community happy with this product and all input from everyone is needed. I know that in the end this game will be what most people expect, but of course not everyone as that's impossible.

If I led anyone astray to buy this game with my first post My Two Cents Worth For Free! then I am very sorry. I did not mean to exaggerate or mislead, I was just telling how I enjoyed the game. And I still do. However, since the patches are not compatible with saved games, I am waiting for a while to restart the first campaign as I am tired of starting over. [;)]