Difference in Scale Between the Two Games

[Hubert Cater]

Thanks Keenan and granted the Pacific is drawn a bit differently from AoD, and in fairness China is overall a bit bigger than what we have here in WaW.

However, some of how China is drawn in AoD is not that easy to directly compare to WaW as there are not as many unplayable hexes in WaW, whereas in AoD there are much larger swaths of China that either don't really come into play or are unplayable such as the thicker mountain ranges or mountain ranges and river combos and so on.

For some examples, and if we consider where most action would be along the roads in China, there is much more dead space north of Peking in AoD filled with mountains that I would argue never really come into play. As well as quite a bit of dead space between Paotow all the way west to Yumen. While it is quite open and accessible south of Peking to Suchow and down to Wuhan, west of that things are pretty much funneled along roads and between mountain ranges that are at times up to 5 tiles thick. West of Chengdu and north of Kunming is more dead space filled with impassable mountains as well and so on.

In comparison to WaW, there is significantly less dead space, and impassable areas relatively speaking as a result of either more roads, or more towns or less harsh terrain penalties etc.

While Europe and the USSR are arguably a bit more spacious in WaW versus AoD, and while it is a fair point that China is drawn a little smaller in WaW than in AoD, it is also handled a bit differently too, which is then not as easy to do 1 to 1, or easy comparison.

Personally I can see how anything east of north/south Chengchow/Ichang line will give you the feel of more space in AoD, but I much prefer how it is handled and feels in WaW west of that line relative to AoD, and especially so if and when the Japanese ever advance further inland.

[Hubert Cater]

But a lot of your decisions about the game, unfortunately from my point of view, is catering to the MP crowd.

Perhaps, but I think the hours alone spent on ensuring a competent AI from our development end would be a bit of a counter point to that point of view [;)]

[JiminyJickers]

I haven't played War in Europe, so don't know how that scale is. But for me, the scale in World at War is absolutely fine. This for me is a good inbetween game, as far as complexity go, it is just casual enough for my liking that I can fire it up and get cracking instantly.

Just thinking about firing up Gary Grigby's War in the East or West gets me nervous at the moment, haha. One day I will be able to master those.

[OxfordGuy3]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks Keenan and granted the Pacific is drawn a bit differently from AoD, and in fairness China is overall a bit bigger than what we have here in WaW.

BTW which game being referred to us "AoD"?

[Toby42]

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks Keenan and granted the Pacific is drawn a bit differently from AoD, and in fairness China is overall a bit bigger than what we have here in WaW.

BTW which game being referred to us "AoD"?

I think that it is Assault on Democracy?

[budd]

ORIGINAL: Toby42

ORIGINAL: OxfordGuy3

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

Thanks Keenan and granted the Pacific is drawn a bit differently from AoD, and in fairness China is overall a bit bigger than what we have here in WaW.

BTW which game being referred to us "AoD"?

I think that it is Assault on Democracy?

Yea, it was an add on for the original SC global game.

[Zemke]

Old War Gamer Perspective

Bought the World at War and give everyone my perspective and experience, I bought the original Strategic Command long ago, and played it a few times and liked it. Also at the time I remember myself and my war gaming buddy comparing it to a computerized version of Avalon Hill's "Third Reich", so we played it and liked it, but it was all most too simple, but it was fun to play TCIP. I did not buy any of the follow-on Strategic Command games till recently, when I heard they were going to put out a complete world version, so on a whim I bought Strategic Command: War in Europe version, just to see how the game had changed and if I was going to buy the World at War version.

I loved the War in Europe game, and thought this is not the Strategic Command game I remember, it was much more detailed and deeper. I much looked forward to the World at War version thinking the map scale and time scale would be similar, but alas they are not. The game is fun to play, but the real value is in do I want to re-play it over and over. I would have MUCH prefer a smaller scale map and shorter time scale. But I do understand this is a business and perhaps my group is too small to have the impact of the younger crowd. But we do have a lot more money, and I do not mind paying for a larger map version. I also do not mind how long the AI takes to do the turn, that is what makes the game great....to me.




Now granted we are both somewhat grognards, as we each have War in the Pacific, War in the East and West and tactical games like Combat Mission and so on, so for us, realism, detail matter. We are both retired Army Officers and life long war gamers.

[Zemke]

So after playing World at War, I jumped back to War in Europe, and it is just better in every way, map scale, time scale, I like how it plays better too. One thing I really liked about World at War was the Pacific Theater and trying to do what Japan did, but it this game it is almost impossible as the time scale is too compressed. It takes months to get the KB to hit PH and then get it back again.

[sillyflower]

I'm also an old gamer in every sense, having started gaming about 55 years ago with games like L'Attaque, Dover Patrol and Tri-Tactics which combined air, sea and land forces. I greatly prefer strategic games to tactical ones and have played all the earlier SC ones but have yet to get this one. I got into WiE after several years of WiTE.

Against that background, what I have seen and read about the scale of this game does rather put me off. Turning WiE (more pedantically that part of WaW) into a game with only a about quarter of the hexes but nothing else changed much seems to be a distortion too far. I accept that simply expanding WiE to WaR would also be a bit bonkers as Hubert has explained.

So we have a situation where the bulk of land forces were employed in a small part of the world ie Europe, and the war vs Japan with much smaller land forces over a much vaster area consisting largely of water. The main land mass in the east was China but nothing of strategic importance happened there during WW II. Marrying the 2 halves into a strategic game can be done relatively easily at a high level with counters representing armies etc. At the other end of the spectrum, the World in Flames experience shows that it can only be done as a board game. The only solution thst I can think of is to have 2 maps with different scales (with all that means for MPs etc) with a mechanism for transfer between the two. Whether or not this is a practical option, I leave to those who know more about computers and programming than I do - which will be all of you who read this post.

[toto83]

I think in-between turns time should also be considerated. In my Japan game, where the rest of the Axis turn is done by AI in addition to the Allies one I can wait for some good 5-7 minutes between each turn. I can't imagine what it would be if the global map was at WiE's scale..