Should I buy Strategic Command: World War I or Strategic Command WWII: World at War?

[Javidor]

I am open to either title but prefer the WWII one. Since the World War I game is newer, by a year, does it have a better AI engine and more quality of life improvements over WWII? If I buy the older WWII title, am I missing out on any game enhancements and improvements that the newer title might have?

[Jace11]

I wouldn't buy World at War as my first Strategic Command game. War in Europe and World War I are both solid titles, but World at War is my least favorite primarily due to the scaling up of the map and everything else to fit. I felt the mechanics struggled at that scale but others may disagree. Anyway, all are regularly updated and maintained to the same high standard (check the patch notes!).

[ElvisJJonesRambo]

Buy them both, it's only money. Take the Pepsi challenge yourself. In 100 years, will it really matter? Spend that Stimulus monopoly money being printed.

[Tulius Hostilius]

ORIGINAL: Jace11

I wouldn't buy World at War as my first Strategic Command game. War in Europe and World War I are both solid titles, but World at War is my least favorite primarily due to the scaling up of the map and everything else to fit. I felt the mechanics struggled at that scale but others may disagree. Anyway, all are regularly updated and maintained to the same high standard (check the patch notes!).

I only have World at War and WWI, both are solid titles.

I have more hours in World at War. It is grand strategy, and I prefer that way. There are no cuts in the map.

[PanzerCro]

ORIGINAL: Javidor

I am open to either title but prefer the WWII one. Since the World War I game is newer, by a year, does it have a better AI engine and more quality of life improvements over WWII? If I buy the older WWII title, am I missing out on any game enhancements and improvements that the newer title might have?

I would buy both. World at War is better for me simply because it's whole world in play and WW1 is diffirent war.

[stormbringer3]

Buy the bundle, you get all three games for a great price. That's what I did. I really like all three.

[Torplexed]

I think of the three I enjoy SC World at War the most. Having the whole planet be your battlefield is a big part of the appeal. Although, like some I do wince at some of the geographic distortions. Some tiny Pacific atolls loom pretty large in this game.

But then it doesn't have a Pacific-sized learning curve either, so that's okay.

[Dalwin]

ORIGINAL: Jace11

I wouldn't buy World at War as my first Strategic Command game. War in Europe and World War I are both solid titles, but World at War is my least favorite primarily due to the scaling up of the map and everything else to fit. I felt the mechanics struggled at that scale but others may disagree. Anyway, all are regularly updated and maintained to the same high standard (check the patch notes!).

I would have to disagree on the Euro-theater WW2 title. I think a bad choice was made in not changing unit scale along with map scale when comparing it to World at War. There are not enough units to fill the front in many areas.

The global version is an excellent game.

The WW1 version does have a few refinements, particularly in the research area. There is better granularity in infantry tech (and some others.) Having more levels but cheaper, and having their costs better tied to the size of the country in question was a good change. However, being WW1, this contest is far less dynamic than WW2. It's like watching cricket instead of baseball.

[ThunderLizard11]

WaW is my top rated title followed by WiE and WW1. All are solid but WaW really stands out especially in MP as there's a lot more dynamics and interests. I only played one WW1 MP so far and opponent ghosted me after 6 or so turns.