Matrix Sale

[alwaysdime]

So I see it is sale time and there are a few titles that interest me. I'm afraid they MAY or MAY NOT add any value if I am already playing The Operational Art of War 4 so I wanted to get opinions of players currently playing this game

Strategic Command WWII - I don't think this would be too similar since it looks like your in charge of purchasing units, research etc.

Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - This looks like it would be very similar. Does it bring enough to the table to make me play that over TOAOW at all? How is the political aspect? That's the part that intrigues me actually.

Tigers on the Hunt - This looks to be more like a modern Steel Panthers or Campaign Series, or it could be s simplified operational level game. The screen shots really don't help with showing the details of any unit so its hard to tell.

I got my credit card locked and loaded, just tell me where to fire.

[Dr. Foo]

Strategic Command WWII - I don't think this would be too similar since it looks like your in charge of purchasing units, research etc.

Beer and pretzel game. It's fun, but I hate that every unit has 10 hit points and that you can whittle a unit down to 1 or 2 before you cannot hit it anymore and the next turn it's back to full strength. [:@]

The AI is very easy to beat. You can win as the Axis pretty easily, playing as the Allies your victory is assured.

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: alwaysdime
Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa - This looks like it would be very similar. Does it bring enough to the table to make me play that over TOAOW at all? How is the political aspect? That's the part that intrigues me actually.

I have that one, and it's one of the finest wargames Matrix has to offer.

The political aspect is almost like a kind of RPG layer to the game, and it gives tons of additional detail about the campaign. There's a lot information provided to read about all the background decisions you can make, everything from railroad conversion to the SS Einsatzgruppen. You actually learn a lot about the real Operation Barbarossa just by playing it.

One other thing that is notable is the great documentation. The game has the best manual I ever saw in a wargame, very well written, with all the information you need in a single 320 page PDF. The game is quite complex, but it's much easier to learn than TOAW. That's one thing I really wish TOAW IV would do better, where information is scattered among a ton of different files.

[alwaysdime]

Thanks for the replies. As for Decisive Campaign I just read a good review but the one thing that surprised me is it mentioned the game needed more automation and the player has too many units to move around. Shouldn't a lot of this be covered by your subordinates? Just how involved do you have to get?

[Der Zeitgeist]

ORIGINAL: alwaysdime

Thanks for the replies. As for Decisive Campaign I just read a good review but the one thing that surprised me is it mentioned the game needed more automation and the player has too many units to move around. Shouldn't a lot of this be covered by your subordinates? Just how involved do you have to get?

Well, I guess it depends on what you're used to from other games. Of course there's a lot of counters to move, because it's only one scenario, and that is the whole campaign at once. There's no scenario "slices" like in WITE, where you only control one army group.

But on the other hand, you only control the actual combat divisions and army HQ's, there's no support units, no air units, no artillery units, all of that is abstracted via the underlying decision system, so the overall number of units to control doesn't seem too overwhelming.

The political and decision aspect covers a lot of the logistical issues of war. Where to allocate fuel supplies, which army gets additional artillery assets, does the air campaign concentrate on strategic interdiction, which makes it harder for the Soviet side to get its units mobilized and to the front line, or does the Luftwaffe shift to ground support, which makes your own battles easier. So there's a lot of these kinds of decisions to make, always with some negative effects, too, which you have to evaluate.

It really is totally different to a game like TOAW, but it's a nice perspective on what wargames can become if developers bring in some new ideas for once.

[marcdhanna]

I'll chime in because I have both TotH and SCWWII.

TotH is a computerized and poorly disguised knock-off of the board game Advanced Squad Leader. The main problem is the AI is just not very good to play against, and the game only supports hot seat multi-player, last I checked. If you like ASL but don't like knowing the rules, and don't mind some bad AI, it's not a bad purchase. If and when they add PBeM multiplayer, it's value will increase.

SCWWII -- not a bad game but it's limited in scope to WWII in Europe. Of course, that is a huge scope! But the naval system is not realistic at this point (not sure it is very much in TOAoW either as I haven't dabbled in naval war yet, but it seems more important have more validity in a grand strategic game), The land and air combat seems well simulated. Still, it was a one-shot wonder for me, I won't go back to play it again.

The Operational Art of War IV -- due to its development history and the way information is presented, this game is hard to master. I keep feeling like I need to buy TOAoW III in order to learn IV! Yet, I'm convinced this game captures the imagination better than the other two do. The scope and range of scenarios and development effort is amazing and it seems to have a loving and dedicated fan-base providing good (if at times obscure) advice, plenty of new scenarios and mods. If I had to choose between the three games, knowing what I know now, I'd pick this game and save my money on the other two.

[Zap]

ORIGINAL: marcdhann

d, this game is hard to master. I keep feeling like I need to buy TOAoW III in order to learn IV! Yet, I'm convinced this game captures the imagination better than the other two do. The scope and range of scenarios and development effort is amazing and it seems to have a loving and dedicated fan-base providing good (if at times obscure) advice, plenty of new scenarios and mods. If I had to choose between the three games, knowing what I know now, I'd pick this game and save my money on the other two.

The Operational Art of War IV -- due to its development history and the way information is presented, this game is hard to master. I keep feeling like I need to buy TOAoW III in order to learn IV!

Why does it seem(information) makes it harder to master? Aren't' things well organized now with IV out. I mean I'd like to purchase but if I have to search the forums for the information I guess I'm not sure how you mean. I don't want to believe its going to be that hard to get info. maybe you can set me at ease with a more in-depth explanation.

[gwgardner]

Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa is superb. I was in on the playtesting as well as playing it from both sides after release, and it never gets old.

It has a unique feature, unlike any game I've played, in that there is a very interesting and involved command level, in which the player must make myriad impactful decisions with regard to supply, transport, objectives, commitment of air and artillery assets, and so on. These decisions affect relationships between various historical high command leaders, logistics commanders, and the player. That part of the game is smoothly integrated into each turn along with the movement of units and combat.

Strategic Command III War in Europe is also excellent. Again, I playtested and have played several campaigns since release, and can't see an end to my interest in the base game or the many mods.

I haven't played Tigers on the Hunt. Grognards seem to love it.

[marcdhanna]

ORIGINAL: Zap

Why does it seem(information) makes it harder to master? Aren't' things well organized now with IV out. I mean I'd like to purchase but if I have to search the forums for the information I guess I'm not sure how you mean. I don't want to believe its going to be that hard to get info. maybe you can set me at ease with a more in-depth explanation.

First, there is a lot of information and if it is well organized, it's not so easy to figure out where to start. It's not a point and click like some arcade game. There are plenty of resources but many of them refer back to the 3rd edition as if we all know what was in there. I don't. I wouldn't hesitate to buy it for these reasons, just know what you are getting yourself into.

[Phoenix100]

I have and don't like Decisive Campaigns: Barbarossa. I find the cards system and the stregic management really not for me. But if you want a game which is not so much focussed on the actual combat then it has that dimension - moving a little towards the AGEOD/Paradox type resources/decisions management. It feels more like a role playing thing to me, and I don't fancy that. But I do keep thinking I should try again with it. One note - as far as I know (someone correct me if I'm wrong) the devs have hung up their hats and quit the development (not so happy with sales figures - I think I read a post where that comment was made), so there won't be any expansions etc.

[IslandInland]

I've got my eye on World In Flames. It's got a big discount and even with no AI I think I enjoy just messing around with the game and reading the manuals and all in the information contained within the game.