Write ups Comparing With Others?

[lordhoff]

Does anyone know if there are any comparison write-ups on the web (and where, of course [:D] ) between this game and the many other WW II Strategy games? I mean, there's World in Flames (or something to that sort), Gary Grigsby's --- , Commander --- , Roads to Victory, and even the remake of Third Reich. Most are turn-based - just looking to see how they differ from one another (without buying every single one [;)] ).

[cpdeyoung]

I do not know of one.
 
I can give you a comparison with "World at War : A World Divided" as I bought it after buying this game.  I hesitate a bit before doing so because I tried it and scurried back to WW2:RtV.  WaW is not hex based, and the units are large abstractions.  It covers the whole war, not just the ETO, and the USA and GB are an undifferentiated alliance.  This level of abstraction is not what I wanted.  I suspect it is fine at what it is, but these are two very different beasts, and I prefer WW2:RtV.
 
I do not know that any joint review article of these games could keep up with the continuous development going on with them.  I will say that WW2:RtV is a gem, if needing buffing.  You might consider going to the forums and sites and seing if they have AARs which can often tell you a lot about a game.
 
Good luck,
 
Chuck

[gwgardner]

I don't mean to bash any other game, so what I say here is just an observation, not putting the other games down.

Gary Grigsby's World at War is 3 months a turn! The scale is huge. Therefore everything is abstracted. There's a lot to the game, so if you don't mind that scale and scope, it's good.

Commander:Europe at War has a demo version. Give it a try. I haven't played that game, other than a few turns of the demo. The map is at a higher scale than Road to Victory, thus it is more at the army level, rather than corps/division, I believe. (don't take my word for it, just my impression)

Strategic Command 2 is a good game, but has one feature that is so obnoxious to me that I can never really get into it: squares(diamonds) instead of hexes. If you can get over that, and especially if you get some of the later add-ons, it's a good game. There is certainly a big fan-base, and quite a few mods.

Two games that I've started to look into, and they look VERY good (I will get one at least) is Schwerpunkt Games Anglo-German War and the earlier Russo-German War. Corps, division level games.

Another fine WWII game is Muzzy Lane's 'Making History.' Great game until you get tired of the wimpy naval and air AI.

Compared to all of those, Road to Victory is good. Very good. Take a look at my and cpdeyoung's AARs to see how much fun we're having playing this game.

[cpdeyoung]

I mention this with the caveat that it may be an artifact, but I tried the Slitherine Demo for "Commander : Europe at War" and McAfee told me it was deleting a trojan, and blocking a connection to "Source IP"?  I deleted the entire folder structure.  Again, please, understand that it may have gotten the infection from some other vector, but be sure and do a good scan if you are nervous.  I hate such stuff!
 
Chuck

[iancarmichael]

Commander: World At War is a good game that incorporates air, land and naval forces in a reasonable fashion.  It has its drawbacks, but it is very versatile and playable, allowing both sides (there are only two, allies and axis, no separate Russian player) to try a multitude of strategies.  The scale is at the corp level and the battles work out it in what often seems more like a WWI style slugging match, but I played it to death and enjoyed it.
 
WWII: Road to Victory does a great job of land combat at the divisional level (between two human players).  As the Germans you can mass your armour and slice into the Russians - very exciting and on a scale more like SPI's old War in Europe/War in the East board game.  But, IMO the air and sea war leaves a lot to be desired.  For example, aitcraft have NO ability to attack shipping!  So, by comparison, air, land and naval forces have not been incorporated in a reasonable fashion.
 
The AI for both games is, well AI.  In other words it is inept.  The AI in WWII:R2V was extraordinarily bad, though I haven't played it since it was upgraded in a recent new release.  If at all possible, both these games should be played against another human player.
 
R2V has new releases planned for the future, so I am hoping they will start to address the lack of Air/Sea interaction.
 
 

[Anraz]

I am hoping they will start to address the lack of Air/Sea interaction.

We did


As I remember my experience with Commander, it is written in Java and has significant slowdowns when there is a lot of units on the map, ww2:RtV is written in C++ and runs much smoother with the same or grater amount of units.