early impressions

[zoot]

i consider myself a average wargamer, so when I buzzed into warsaw on turn 3 or 4 unopposed I was surprized. I quickly trasfered units to the west front and took lex and netherlands in november and surrounded Paris in dec. The whole time playing with understrength units because the german army was suppose to resting according to a message I got. I saw that the AI was making the same mistakes that it made in TOW about where to defend. The French units were only slightly harder to destroy then they were in TOW. French units that were isloated in cities tended to get stronger, even when attacked and reduced they would recoup their strength.
So playing on a harder mode would not be any different since the only thing that changes is the amount of money you have to buy units, which does not come into play here.
I found the naval aspect of the game very disaggreable. My subs which sat in the same spots the entire time could sink nothing, the British could never find them, unlike TOW which was very hard on subs. My Itialian navy which I spent gobs of money rebuilding did not get into a single fight with british and french task forces even though I was bombing them. Money would have been better spent building new Itialian bombers and selling the navy. Being able to kick the British out of the Eastern Med is key to taking N Africa.
Right now at the end of Dec 39 I saw that naval game as very sub par and the land game is just TOW all over again.
At least the british navy did not sit in the north sea and let me bomb them into oblivian.
Maybe Russian in a hard mode will be a worthwhile fight.
zoot

[doomtrader]

Germans historically entered Warsaw after less than four weeks.

Playing on a harder difficulty will decrease your efficiency, which affects the gameplay a lot.
Also as a player with experience in TOW, I suggest you to play on harder mode.

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: zoot

i consider myself a average wargamer, so when I buzzed into warsaw on turn 3 or 4 unopposed I was surprized. I quickly trasfered units to the west front and took lex and netherlands in november and surrounded Paris in dec. The whole time playing with understrength units because the german army was suppose to resting according to a message I got. I saw that the AI was making the same mistakes that it made in TOW about where to defend. The French units were only slightly harder to destroy then they were in TOW. French units that were isloated in cities tended to get stronger, even when attacked and reduced they would recoup their strength.
So playing on a harder mode would not be any different since the only thing that changes is the amount of money you have to buy units, which does not come into play here.
I found the naval aspect of the game very disaggreable. My subs which sat in the same spots the entire time could sink nothing, the British could never find them, unlike TOW which was very hard on subs. My Itialian navy which I spent gobs of money rebuilding did not get into a single fight with british and french task forces even though I was bombing them. Money would have been better spent building new Itialian bombers and selling the navy. Being able to kick the British out of the Eastern Med is key to taking N Africa.
Right now at the end of Dec 39 I saw that naval game as very sub par and the land game is just TOW all over again.
At least the british navy did not sit in the north sea and let me bomb them into oblivian.
Maybe Russian in a hard mode will be a worthwhile fight.
zoot

Yes, you took the low countries and France early, but as a result of the reduced effectiveness penalty, you took more losses than you would have. It remains to be seen whether that hurts you in the end, with regard to lost PPs for more reinforcements, loss of units that have to be rebuilt. What will the effect of those losses be on your subsequent campaigns?

Check your reports for the results of the sub vs convoy war. Check the reports for ship losses.

[zoot]

all good points, but i was wondering if added PP's for occupied countries would offset some of that? Time will tell. I did check the logs and only one IT sub scored a hit.
I really like the TOW verison of naval warfare, except the AI was to predicatable, one could station a mass of bombers in certain places and destory a fleet in a matter of turns.
zoot

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: zoot

all good points, but i was wondering if added PP's for occupied countries would offset some of that? Time will tell. I did check the logs and only one IT sub scored a hit.
I really like the TOW verison of naval warfare, except the AI was to predicatable, one could station a mass of bombers in certain places and destory a fleet in a matter of turns.
zoot

I personally wasn't much interested in the naval aspect during testing, but focused on convoy attacks and ASW. Those are a big part of the game now. I've checked it from both sides, and it is working well in my opinion. The Battle of the Atlantic can be played out.

With regard to the old ToW AI navy becoming sitting ducks, I know there were changes made in this regard, so that the AI would become aware of the numbers of enemy air units nearby, and thereby make changes in positioning.

This will certainly have an impact on such things as Sealion: will the UK AI Royal Navy be able to defend the shores of Britain, if the Germans have indeed achieved air superiority, and have bombers along the Channel?

[Razz1]

As mentioned, we worked very hard to make the naval game work.

The AI will not keep a fleet in a sea zone long if you continue to bomb it. Hence the easy days are gone.

As far as you Navy not getting into a fight...

That depends upon fleet behavior and detection.

May I suggest re-reading the manual.

We spent two years working on this making it very detailed yet easier and more fun that GG War In the East.

[aesopo]

I find the AI lacking on axis and allied sides on this. AI would abandon forts to plug isolated gaps, moving away from the front, not using combined arms (air, land) to coordinate attacks. AI would put up fronts which is good but when your units are at 0 or 1 strength you don't waste them as fodder in the front. Am I just imagining this?

[zoot]

After palying the game further, I have noticed an up tick in naval action. However my success still comes from bombing naval units and not fleet engagements, From history this was the case. As I roll into 1940 and was attacked by Russia I find the game a bit more diffifult the TOW, Africa will be a much harder to take. Research seems to take longer all so, which I think is good. British aircraft carriers seem to do alot of damage to me, they especially hard on subs.
zoot

[Zovs]

Well my first impressions are this is an okay game. Nothing to scream about yet.

Someone upstream mentioned:

ORIGINAL:  Razz

We spent two years working on this making it very detailed yet easier and more fun that GG War In the East.

Actually as a play-tester for CG WITE, I can say that you are quite wrong here.

The graphics in this game are 'okay', it is nice to be able to switch between icons/nato and other types of maps. But it is not really that detailed as compared to WITE. For starters you can only stack one unit in a hex in this game and you can stack 3 in WITE. Also, you have way more operational contorl and rich detail in WITE, not so here. As far as fun, well that remains to be seen. WITE is fun if you like detailed, operational level combat (think in board game terms of GDW's Fire in the East/Scorched Earth combined with SPI's easy War in the East and throw in the most detailed logistics and 'database' game of its era '78 The Campaign for North Africa) and you have GG WITE. This game in comparison to a board war game would be like maybe AH Advanced Third Reich with a little chrome thrown in. Both board games (and hence both of these PC games) have their merits. But your opinion is just that.

I got the game thinking it would be 'that' one PC grand strategy ww2 war game, but I am still looking for that 'one' game.

I'll try this game again but it's definitely not as detailed as WITE, nor is it as detailed as DG WIE, nor is the interface as nice and clean either.

I am glad I got the discount of 30% otherwise I would have been even more disappointed.

Some of the positives this game offers:

You can change the graphics.
It has cool music.

But that is as far as I got so far. I am only somewhat impressed thus far (if I was more impressed I would be playing it right now).

As a stark comparison, when PC first came out I forgot to go to work for 3 days. Now that is an engrossing and frustrating game.

I am going to read the manual and give this another shot, it seems to have potential, maybe when it gets its first set of patches it may be a better game. But as a poster above has already mentioned, if in Dec 39 he took out Poland and the Low Countries and is on the verge of Paris, that is not a very historical game play thus far and extremal disappointing for those that enjoy historically accurate games (aka GG WITE).

[gwgardner]

ORIGINAL: dlazov66

as fun, well that remains to be seen. WITE is fun if you like detailed, operational level combat (think in board game terms of GDW's Fire in the East/Scorched Earth combined with SPI's easy War in the East and throw in the most detailed logistics and 'database' game of its era '78

It's all in the eye of the beholder. I played SPI's 'easy' War in the East/War in Europe for years, with the maps covering an entire pingpong table. To me it was the epitome of a board wargame. To me, it is the ultimate in playable yet detailed game. And now we have Time of Fury, which in my extensive PC gaming experience, comes closest to War in the East/War in Europe on a PC. It has an AI, as opposed to the actual Computer War in the East.

I never ever wanted Time of Fury to be like Grigsby's War in the East - a great game - but far more detail than I wanted to handle.

So all Razz was saying, in my opinion, was that FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT all the massive detail of Grigsby's game, Time of Fury is more fun.

Time of Fury should not be compared to Grigsby's game, feature by feature. It's a whole different animule.

As I said, it's all in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, Time of Fury is the epitome of a playable WWII PC game.

[doomtrader]

GG WITE is a great game, but without any doubt it is much detailed.
Also as gwgardner said, those two games shouldn't be compared. Those are like Rolls Royce and Lamborghini. Both great cars, but completely different.

[Flaviusx]

Dan, I think this game is pretty fun, myself. It's not as hardcore as WitE. But, you know, sometimes, it's okay to go out and scarf down some McDonald's. It can't be all haute cuisine all the time.

[JudgeDredd]

As it's an "early impressions" thread - I think the game is great fun so far. As I said somewhere else, I have no idea at present how the AI is doing - but I like the combat, I LOVE the graphics and I ADORE the map -it's beautiful - I am using Agent-1(TOW)...I think it's stunning and love the look.

I've also enjoyed the Barbarossa campaign I am playing at present.

[Zovs]

Well this game is starting to grow on me a little bit. I got the counters the way I like them (combination mode) but not yet set on a map style.

This game has more then I gave it credit for earlier, my first impressions were based on the tutorials. Now I am in the first 1939 campaign and am finding myself looking at the map going now what? Even though I went through the tutorials I am not exactly sure what the best course of action is.

Just found the TOF Strategy Guide.

If you don't hear from me that means I like this game more then I did early and am lost some where in time...

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: gwgardner
I never ever wanted Time of Fury to be like Grigsby's War in the East - a great game - but far more detail than I wanted to handle.
So all Razz was saying, in my opinion, was that FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT all the massive detail of Grigsby's game, Time of Fury is more fun.
Time of Fury should not be compared to Grigsby's game, feature by feature. It's a whole different animule.
As I said, it's all in the eye of the beholder. In my eyes, Time of Fury is the epitome of a playable WWII PC game.

I agree. I looked at Grigsby's WITE and Pacific War but the detail level was just too high. I would never have a hope of remembering all of the issues around refighting Barbarossa with WiTE where as with ToF I find that I am stretched mentally , but enjoyably so. For those who can get into the minute details of war then WiTE and Pacific War is great fun but they're not for me.

Note that I don't say that one is better than the other. They are pitched at different audiences and they both deserve success.
So lets not start a Flame War here - the more WWII strategy games we see the happier I'll be

[nukkxx5058]

ORIGINAL: JudgeDredd

As it's an "early impressions" thread - I think the game is great fun so far. As I said somewhere else, I have no idea at present how the AI is doing - but I like the combat, I LOVE the graphics and I ADORE the map -it's beautiful - I am using Agent-1(TOW)...I think it's stunning and love the look.

I've also enjoyed the Barbarossa campaign I am playing at present.

Thank you !! I just bought TOF and I was precisely starting to think that the map was absolutely awful as well as the units and I was very disappointed !
So I was very surprised by your message and decided to give it a try and yes, that's perfect, the TOW map is great ! I love it especially together with NATO counters.