This one or War in Europe ?

[Wiggum]

Hi !

Im not sure which one to buy. On one hand being able to play with Japan and India and more of Africa sounds great but i have read that World at War uses the same map size as "War in Europe" and that each hex now represents a much bigger area and that this is not ideal and overall that the gameplay feels more realistic in War in Europe. Whats your opinion on that ?

[HamburgerMeat]

Both games are approachable and a lot of fun. But if you had to pick one...

War in Europe just released a new major patch, and has a more stable metagame. I wouldn't call it realistic when you start playing against the best players, but for the most part it is realistic enough (paratroopers, airpower, and amphib assaults being my only big gripes about realism).

World at War was only recently released, and the scale is a bit small for players. It's a load of fun, but it is not realistic in the slightest. However because its so new you have a lot more variability in strategy. I think modders are currently working on a bigger map for World at War as we speak.

So if you want more opportunities for encirclement and prefer realism, get WiE. If you want to play a new game that allows for more experimentation, get WaW

[erobideaux]

Reading the two posts above - If both War in Europe and World at War use exactly the same game mechanics, why would WIE be considered "more realistic" than WAW?

[Simulacra53]

Although I prefer the scale of WiE, both are great games.
I’d base my choice on theatre, if you prefer the ETO, go for WiE, if you like the PTO or global scale go WaW.
You cannot really make a bad choice.

[Markiss]

WiE is more realistic because you can use more realistic tactics. In WiE, the land spaces are vast, and you have plenty of room for maneuver. Flanking attacks, pincer movements, using feints to trick you opponent out of position, and all other manner of tactics are all possible.

In WaW, Europe, where most of the combat takes place, is quite a bit smaller hex-wise than it is in WiE. When the enemies line extends from sea to shining sea, several hexes deep, there is no opportunity for flanking maneuvers, encirclements, or basically anything other than a straight ahead charge. The game becomes a battle-of-attrition slug fest, with little chance for it to develop into anything else. There is lots of empty ocean to roam around in, but that is not where the main battles are fought. Sub-Saharan Africa and Central Asia are neat to see, but the chances for any significant combat taking pace there is minimal. The game has its own charm, don't get me wrong, the addition of the pacific theatre adds alot to the game. It may be more appealing to some one who favors grand strategy as opposed to tactical battles.

But tactical realism is not its strong suit.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: erobideaux

Reading the two posts above - If both War in Europe and World at War use exactly the same game mechanics, why would WIE be considered "more realistic" than WAW?

The timing of the turns and the scale of WaW makes it much more unrealistic versus WiE. So you have a hex that covers a much larger area but the same size units in WiE. Plus each turn is a month for each player. Axis turn is 15 days, then the Allied turn is the NEXT 15 days. So each side gets one turn a month. While WiE have variable turns based on the seasons which makes a lot more sense. At least to me anyway [:)]

Herbert made a nice mod that changes the timescale to 7 days versus 15 for each side. Which really improved the game for me. That way each side get two turns a month versus one.

The main reason one turn a month was made for each side is so PBEM games would be faster as supposedly people complained about PBEM games in WiE taking too long.

[Hubert Cater]

The main reason one turn a month was made for each side is so PBEM games would be faster as supposedly people complained about PBEM games in WiE taking too long.

Hi Numydar,

Just wanted to quickly respond as this caught my eye, and to reiterate that this is not why the turns are one month long in the World at War release. Granted some might feel that at times, especially during the summer months in Western Europe, that the turns progress too quickly for them, but overall the number of turns per year work out almost the same as they do for War in Europe.

The World at War release covers the entire globe, and as such the summer months in one part of the map, might be winter in another part of the map, and so it was a design decision to implement the turns as we did, not only because of this, but because the game also plays out much better this way from 1939 to 1945.

Again, some felt differently so we were happy to create a mod for those, but others feel it is well optimized as there would simply be too many in game turns otherwise, simply meaning the war could be over from Barbarossa to Berlin at the end of 1941 as opposed to 1944 etc.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[John B.]

I've just started playing World at War but so far, I prefer it. It's a personal choice, but I really like the addition of China and the far eastern theater for the Soviet union plus Ethiopia/Sudan and the middle east. It gives me a sense of the entire war and how different geographic areas interacted with each other.

[Numdydar]

ORIGINAL: Hubert Cater

The main reason one turn a month was made for each side is so PBEM games would be faster as supposedly people complained about PBEM games in WiE taking too long.

Hi Numydar,

Just wanted to quickly respond as this caught my eye, and to reiterate that this is not why the turns are one month long in the World at War release. Granted some might feel that at times, especially during the summer months in Western Europe, that the turns progress too quickly for them, but overall the number of turns per year work out almost the same as they do for War in Europe.

The World at War release covers the entire globe, and as such the summer months in one part of the map, might be winter in another part of the map, and so it was a design decision to implement the turns as we did, not only because of this, but because the game also plays out much better this way from 1939 to 1945.

Again, some felt differently so we were happy to create a mod for those, but others feel it is well optimized as there would simply be too many in game turns otherwise, simply meaning the war could be over from Barbarossa to Berlin at the end of 1941 as opposed to 1944 etc.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

As always I appreciate your time to reply.

Unfortunately, that does not help [:(]

99% of the war was fought North of the Tropic of Capricorn. Which South of there is where the seasons are reversed from those North of the Tropic of Cancer.

Between the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer is the area where the seasons would have little to no impact, i.e. tropics where seasons have little impact, ignoring local conditions and elevation.

So changing the game timeline from your previous titles due to seasons being different, does not make much sense to me. Especially since your previous Global War game 'should' have had the same issue yet the time there did not use the system now in WaW. which is is why I made the assumption that the timeline change had to have some other reason. So it seemed reasonable that it made PBEM faster was the main reason.

[rob89]

IMHO, one of the best features of this game is the editor.

If you don't like, you can change quite everything : the timescale (I opted for a 7-days-alternate), the economics, the units (type, costs, values, ...), the OOB (at start and in the progress), the reseach progress and impacts, and so on .. [:)]

Obviously, the most difficult thing is to find the right balance ...

[Hubert Cater]

Especially since your previous Global War game 'should' have had the same issue yet the time there did not use the system now in WaW. which is is why I made the assumption that the timeline change had to have some other reason. So it seemed reasonable that it made PBEM faster was the main reason.

Hi Numdydar,

Unfortunately this is not correct either as Strategic Command WWII: World at War uses the same 14 day alternate turn setup as does our previous Global titles, i.e. Global, Global Gold, and Assault on Democracy.

Essentially the turn lengths have never changed for all our Global titles which was one of the reasons we were a little surprised that players suddenly found issues in this one particular, area and previously did not.

Hope this helps,
Hubert

[Numdydar]

It has been awhile since I played AoD but I really thought that it had variable turns like WiE.

I share your surprise as I really loved AoD and played it quite a bit. So if it has close to the same turn length and scale as WaW, then it puzzles me as to why WaW does not have the same feel for me as AoD did. The only thing I can think of was WiE was such an outstanding game that WaW did not seem to meet the same level as WiE. At least for me anyway.

Thanks for the clarification and discussion. Always appreciated even when we disagree [:)]

[David Hansen]

As someone who is still deciding to purchase one or the other based on playability over historical accuracy:

WIE Manual-26 pages

WAW Manual-298 pages.

Is the above comparison a reflection on the degree of complexity between the two? Is it better for a newbie to start with WIE first...then graduate to WAW...?

Or... are both games easy to pick up and play...with WAW just being broader in scope of play b/c two theaters of war...especially with the expanded naval component of the two ocean war and amphibious landings found WAW?

Which is easier to just be able to "jump in" and get started and learn as you go...vs. spending more time thumbing through a manual while trying to get started?

TXS

[David Hansen]

Please ignore my above posting about manual size.

WIE has 203 pages when I view the table of contents...but the d/l of the manual contains only 26 pages of selected content.

While the d/l of WAW has all 298 pages included.

Sorry for the confusion on my part.

[BillRunacre]

are both games easy to pick up and play...with WAW just being broader in scope of play b/c two theaters of war...especially with the expanded naval component of the two ocean war and amphibious landings found WAW?

Hi David

In answer to this question, yes. [:)]

In terms of jumping in, whichever you choose you can always just start a game in Hotseat mode to try everything out, and then start a real game once you feel that you've got a grasp for most of it.

It might be that War in Europe is slightly easier to jump into as it hasn't got the Pacific Theater with its large scale amphibious landings and sweeping naval battles, but I don't think their inclusion makes World at War much harder to learn.

So I'd say to go with your heart and I hope you enjoy the game!

Bill

[David Hansen]

Went with WAW!..What I found helpful is having the manual available while in game.