I love this game, but...

[countrboy]

Picked up the game a month or so ago and am really enjoying it, and thought I might as well put down my thoughts on the game.

It's basically everything I could hope for in a WW2 strategic game, but a couple things stick out for me:

- the scale. The scale is a little odd, as has been said many many times. The size of a hex, plus hexes which hold either an entire army, a corps, an AA unit or a fighter unit....it just seems odd. The map is cluttered with what I would consider to be auxiliary units - AA, aircraft, artillery etc. Because of the scale, in Russia there is little sense of the vast distances, no ability to make huge encirclements or sweeping moves. In Grigsby's War in the East you really felt that the Germans were at the end of a very very long rope once they got deep into Russia - in this game, German Panzers are running around east of Moscow with full supply. Sure, there might be way more units to move if the scale was changed, but that's why we buy these games! We love moving units!

- no combined attacks. The restriction on only attacking with one unit per attack is unfortunate. The ability to hot-swap an entire army with another using the shift key, so that it can attack next is very strange and is one of those moments that ruins the believability of the game. It just seems so improbable. I can't recall seeing such an approach very often before (I don't own War in Europe, yet) and it seems an odd design choice.

- HQs. It's a minor issue, but HQs are also strange. Leave it on auto and the HQ attaches the AA unit 4 hexes from the frontline, leaving the armies at the front unsupplied. Or, take over and do it manually and you have to keep checking every turn to see if it needs to change. Some sort of color-coding (a la Grigsby's WiE again) would be helpful to tell at a glance who is attached to who.

There are other minor issues of course, which have all been discussed in the forum, but these 3 are the ones that stand out for me.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts about the game. AS I said, I do really enjoy it and it is as close to the ideal WW2 strategy/wargame as I have found. The mix of military and diplomacy and production is great (that said, decision events really seem to dry up in the later years, which is a shame), which my other favorites (Grigsby's games mainly) just can't match. I also appreciate how active the devs are on the forums, it's a credit to you guys and an example for other game developers.

[Hubert Cater]

Welcome aboard and thanks for the feedback countryboy [:)]

[Steely Glint]

The number of options and decisions available dried up in the real WW2 as well.

No, the game isn’t perfect, but it certainly is the best grand strategy World War II game to date. If you don’t like to play it, I’m sorry, but if nothing else it has raised the bar a great deal for all future such games.

Personally I waited for a game like this one for a very long time, and I’m quite happy with it. Your mileage clearly varies.

[countrboy]

Hi Steely Glint, I think you've misunderstood me, I think the game is great. It is certainly the best grand WW2 strategy game. All I was doing was pointing out a few issues which I thought were not so great. Even with those few issues I think it's a great game and one I expect to spend many many hours enjoying.

[Titan]

i agree country boy know what you mean...Ive played just two games of it myself and like you have that boxed in feel. It unfortunatley doesnt do it for me, ive gone back to playing SC3 war in Europe the scale just has a better feel to it.

[ThunderLizard11]

I like the HQ coloring idea. I leave them on auto now and I'm sure it's not optimal especially in MP.