Time of Wrath or GG World Divided?

[Rhizy]

Hi all,

I'm considering buying a grand strategy WWII game - my short list is this and A World Divided. Any recommendations or comments from those of you who have played both? I'm keen to start a few PBEM games with the one I end up going with. Have been playing War Between the States and thoroughly enjoying it.

Thanks.

[cpdeyoung]

I actually have both, but this is the one for me. They are quite different in feel I think, but this is my type of wargame. I am a move counters guy, and this has that boardgame feel to me.

I have not played WaW:Awd enough to give a more precise answer. Probably both good. Do they both have demos?

Chuck

[gwgardner]

do you want 3 months per turn, as in World Divided? Or 1 week turns?

[Rhizy]

3 months versus 1 week doesn't really bother me - do you think the 1 week turns provides a more detailed or comprehensive coverage of the war? I'm really looking for something to get me in the mood for World in Flames and War in Russia when they're eventually released. With Time of Wrath do you get something of a good feel for the sweep and scale of Russian Front - encirclements etc? I played the Time of Wrath demo and really enjoyed it. Decisions, decisions. I'll probably end up getting both as I like to support the fine developers making games for this niche market.

[Joram]

If you really liked the demo then quite frankly I think you will really like this game.  I have enjoyed putting together armored columns sweeping across the plains in a desperate race to encircle some troops or grab vital cities for supply.  All this just to be slowed to a near complete stop by winter and lack of supplies.  

[borsook79]

A world divided can be fun, but it lacks depth. Provinces are very, very big, which is good if you lack time, but conquering France in one battle is not very "epic"

[Wolfe1759]

Both good games and both quiet different

AWD - Pros - Very similar interface to War Between the States which you allready have, you get the whole world ETO & PTO (though this might be a con if you are just interested in the European war), with 3 month turns it plays quickly.

AWD - Cons - No opportunity for opperational maneuver of your units eg the battle of France is really just the attack on one area and usually is over in one turn.

ToW - Pros - A lot easier to learn and get into than AWD (particularaly if you are used to board wargames), division/corps level rather than army/army group/front level so you do get to do opperational maneuver and therefore the final defeat of France (assuming you're Germany) feels like you have actualy achieved something rather than just clicked the attack button.

ToW - Cons - you don't get the PTO, will take a lot longer to play even though it is actually easier to play, still being developed (though this is at the same time a Pro) so you might want to hold off untill at least the next patch (which is due I beleive in the next few weeks or so) before committing to a lengthy PBEM game.

If PBEM is your focus it is probably also worth thinking about how much time you are going to spend playing one game, as I could probably only turn round a couple of turns per week in a PBEM game AWD would take me about 3 months to play through to 1945 whereas ToW would take me 4-5 years.

As a transition to WiF or WiR though ToW would probably be a better bet.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

If PBEM is your focus it is probably also worth thinking about how much time you are going to spend playing one game, as I could probably only turn round a couple of turns per week in a PBEM game AWD would take me about 3 months to play through to 1945 whereas ToW would take me 4-5 years.

As a transition to WiF or WiR though ToW would probably be a better bet.

ToW PBEM wouldn't take 4-5 years. More like 3-4 months, and less than that if the players are consistently making turns.

[Wolfe1759]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner

ORIGINAL: Wolfe

If PBEM is your focus it is probably also worth thinking about how much time you are going to spend playing one game, as I could probably only turn round a couple of turns per week in a PBEM game AWD would take me about 3 months to play through to 1945 whereas ToW would take me 4-5 years.

As a transition to WiF or WiR though ToW would probably be a better bet.

ToW PBEM wouldn't take 4-5 years. More like 3-4 months, and less than that if the players are consistently making turns.

At my admittedly very slow 2 turns a week I was saying it would take me that long


Maybe a better comparison would be that you could play a dozen or more games of AWD in the time you will play one game of ToW.

Or looking at it another way ToW will give you 12 times the game experience / "depth" of AWD. [:)]

[PDiFolco]

Well, that's 2 different beasts, GGWaWis much more "high level", with few turns and few units, careful planning of each battle is necessary, as well as handling of supplies. ToW is much more "detailed", yet easier to play, but also much longer...If you plan pbem WaW is much better adapted imho.
Also, WaW is overall more historical, with many constraints/rules that aim at recreating history, ToW allows for more "fancy" alternate history.
Lastly, GGWaW is a polished, mostly bug free product, ToW is not yet.

[Gloo]

I would not really compare both games. WaW (which I did not really enjoy) is more a kind of a Risk game, with a different scale and a totally different gameplay. WW2-ToW compares more closely with Strategic command. I would definitely recommend the former. AfaIK there's no available demo for the GG-WaW but there sure is one for SC1-2 and it's stand alone extensions.

[SeaMonkey]

Glad you said it Gloo and not me. GGawd just isn't my cup of tea either and probably not anyone elses if you wish an operational maneuver type of game. SC at this point is so much more polished than any of the new contenders, it isn't even a contest, someone will have to do their homework and make a quantum leap to surpass SC at this scale.

Looking forward to "Bitter Glory" and hopefully NOT seazones, and a friendly UI, simple to play, fast executing PBEM, and exceedingly difficult to master, but until then, there is Nupremal's World Campaign, Big Al's rendition of Global Warfare, "Brute Strength" and lastly masterclaude's new entry on the WW2 earthly model.

Did I mention that the SC editor is better than Norm's TOAW? So many mods to play and so little time.

[Anraz]

 

Looking forward to "Bitter Glory" and hopefully NOT seazones

Only hexes It was  one of initial design decisions.

fast executing PBEM

 

BG is WEGO with active pause or some people would rather say “real time like HoI series”.

 

exceedingly difficult to master, but until then, there is Nupremal's World Campaign, Big Al's rendition of Global Warfare, "Brute Strength" and lastly masterclaude's new entry on the WW2 earthly model.

 
The game is much more detailed than HoI3 (in half way between HoI3 and WitP AE). 

I like to call the game “the ultimate ww2 simulator”    

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: SeaMonkey

Glad you said it Gloo and not me. GGawd just isn't my cup of tea either and probably not anyone elses if you wish an operational maneuver type of game. SC at this point is so much more polished than any of the new contenders, it isn't even a contest, someone will have to do their homework and make a quantum leap to surpass SC at this scale.

I've played SC2 extensively, and ToW is already a MUCH MUCH better game. The naval game in ToW is light-years better than SC2s, as is the air war, the hexes vs. the bizarre diamonds in SC2, the needlessly complex supply rules in SC2, the non-intuitive unit strength system in SC2. On all counts, Time of Wrathe is a better game.

[micheljq]

Excuse me I am lurker.

What is GG-WaW and WaW? [&:]

[cpdeyoung]

GG-WaW : Gary Grigsby's World at War
WaW : World at War
WaW:AWD : World at War - A World Divided

World War Two simulation game, sold by Matrix.

Chuck

[PitifulGrunt]

I believe it is Gary Grigsby's World at War of which there are several different games I think. WaW - A World Divided (awd) for instance. Then there's War in the Pacific. HoI = Hearts of Iron.

I could be wrong on any or all of these.

[PDiFolco]

ORIGINAL: PitifulGrunt

I believe it is Gary Grigsby's World at War of which there are several different games I think. WaW - A World Divided (awd) for instance. Then there's War in the Pacific. HoI = Hearts of Iron.

I could be wrong on any or all of these.

That's mostly the same game - World at War by G.Grigsby, which has got an extension "A World divided". As the extension is "more of the same" it has replaced the base game.

[SeaMonkey]

[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

I do believe fighters should have some effect on the ground war.  In fact a wonderful addition would be an effectiveness penalty for air supperiority/supremacy.  We already calculate it at least for cites now.. so we could apply some sort of modifier to a units effectiveness depending on the air superiority level.  And fighters should be the absolute KING of gaining superiority/supremacy.  On this scale a group of fighters attacking a division or corp and doing damage is likely unrealistic, but fighters gaining air superiority and therefore reducing that corps/divisions effectiveness sounds VERY much like fighters straffing truck convoys to me!


[/blockquote]

I suggested something like this in an earlier thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2162802

It seems, however, that the current game engine is just insufficient to handle such ideas, or that it has to be changed to such degree that it would overburden the limited time of the developers. It would have been a nice touch, though. [align=right] [/align][align=left]I stand corrected gwg![/align][align=right] [/align]

[Rhizy]

Thanks for the input. Think I've decided to purchase ToW for now.