How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to WWII: World at War

Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific is a turn-based strategy game. It offers a comprehensive experience of the Pacific Theater, challenging you to achieve victory in one of history's greatest conflicts.
Post Reply
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to WWII: World at War

Post by BillRunacre »

Image

As this question has been raised, I thought it might be useful to make a post explaining how this campaign differs from the Pacific aspect of our WWII: World at War game.

Note that while the engine for WWII: World at War will in due course be upgraded, for the most part the campaign changes listed below will not be added to the official campaigns.

1) Japan’s allies are much more heavily featured:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=403321

2) China is more divided and troops will be needed both to maintain internal order and to fight the enemy:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404156

3) French forces in Indochina can now revolt against the Japanese.

4) The Doolittle raid can now be launched.

5) Ports on islands now provide less supply to naval units, making things more realistic.

6) A new research category has been added called Naval Construction, allowing for port supply on small islands to be increased (think Seabees).

7) Having naval superiority in “The Slot” is now important to winning the battle for control of Guadalcanal in the Solomons.

8) There are now Battleships and Super Battleships, the latter being for ships like the Yamato and the Iowa class.

9) Japan’s Light Cruisers and both side’s Super Battleships have an increased spotting range at sea to reflect their use of spotting planes.

10) There are no Long Range Amphibious Transports in this campaign, so invasions require more planning and will be more effective the less time the troops spend at sea – making limited island hopping possible, while rendering long range missions effectively impossible.

11) Coupled with the above, unless they capture Hawaii, Japanese units to the east of the island will suffer penalties due to being far from home.

12) Naval units now have significantly increased Zones of Control, making it easier to protect vulnerable ships such as your Carriers and invasion forces.

13) Additionally, naval retreat ranges and the chances of ships retreating have been increased significantly, improving the “feel” of naval battles.

14) A second new research category is Submarine Warfare. Neither the US nor Japanese submarine fleets engaged in many attacks on merchant shipping early in the war, and only the US began doing so as the war progressed.

Consequently to reflect this, both sides can now change their Submarine units’ doctrines as the war progresses, increasing both the size and raiding capabilities of their submarine fleet in order to better target enemy convoy routes.

15) Airfields have been introduced to many Pacific islands, and units occupying them benefit from increases in their range and effectiveness. This makes these useful places to station Maritime Bombers to watch for enemy shipping. It does of course also make them important places to fight over, and to give just one example: Henderson Field does tend to be very intensely fought over, just as it was in real life.

16) Victory Conditions will change as the campaign progresses, and both sides should have a good chance of winning. Japan does not need to conquer everything in order to win, so it can make for a high intensity experience if they get to close to victory before the US has fully got its amphibious invasion forces into position to make a difference.

17) Australia is now a Major power.

18) Communist China can expand as the war progresses should the conditions allow it.

19) If the Allies can capture Lorengau then Rabaul can be effectively isolated.

20) Strategic Bombers are less effective.

21) There are lots of new Decision to take based on new research into the war, and this campaign also comes with a 40-page Strategy Guide full of useful information, including a list of all the National Morale locations with coordinates.

Image

22) The historical Pop Ups can be turned off by going to: Options -> Advanced -> Scripts -> Decision (it's the one right at the bottom) and turn off DE 163 (it's the one right at the top).

23) Submarines' base attack values are lower, therefore they will need upgrading if they are to prove useful as fleet auxiliaries, although Japan does start with a higher level of research in order to reflect the quality of its Long Lance torpedoes.

24) Australia has the option to invest in Coast Watchers who will provide intelligence reports on Japanese dispositions.

25) If the US does want to use Atomic Bombs, it will need to invest in them at an earlier date, planning ahead rather than paying for them when they are used.

Hopefully I have captured all the important differences here, because after working on the Pacific for months on end and making literally hundreds of changes before beta even began, it can be hard to remember everything. I will of course update this if it does transpire that I missed something important, so please tell me if I have!
Last edited by BillRunacre on Sat Jul 27, 2024 8:52 am, edited 5 times in total.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
kreckel1
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 5:00 pm

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by kreckel1 »

Thanks for the enlightening comparison. I have a different question. Apparently this game comes with only one comprehensive scenario starting with Dec 7, 1941. Unless I am mistaken, in what seems a major departure from all of your previous WWII games, there are no major campaigns beginning at other times during the war, 1942, 1943, etc. Why was this done? It's true the game can be edited to do this, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt this massive task.
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by BillRunacre »

kreckel1 wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 3:50 pm Thanks for the enlightening comparison. I have a different question. Apparently this game comes with only one comprehensive scenario starting with Dec 7, 1941. Unless I am mistaken, in what seems a major departure from all of your previous WWII games, there are no major campaigns beginning at other times during the war, 1942, 1943, etc. Why was this done? It's true the game can be edited to do this, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to attempt this massive task.
We decided to go with one main campaign coupled with 5 engaging mini-campaigns for quick playing, PBEM friendly matches and tournaments for this release.

Extra campaigns are a lot of work and most people just play the main one, so it felt best to concentrate on that, and possibly create some others at a later date - particularly as we have also been collecting feedback as to what potential campaigns people might want to see if we are to produce a DLC.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
stormbringer3
Posts: 1026
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 2:58 pm
Location: Staunton, Va.

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by stormbringer3 »

Does the main campaign start with a Pearl Harbor event or does the Japanese player have to attack?
Thanks.
Ashtur
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by Ashtur »

BillRunacre wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 5:04 pm

Extra campaigns are a lot of work and most people just play the main one, so it felt best to concentrate on that, and possibly create some others at a later date - particularly as we have also been collecting feedback as to what potential campaigns people might want to see if we are to produce a DLC.
Consider my votes for a fully China-centric campaign, and/or a CBI focused campaign, even with a scale shift in the process :)
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by BillRunacre »

stormbringer3 wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 5:09 pm Does the main campaign start with a Pearl Harbor event or does the Japanese player have to attack?
Thanks.
There is no automatic event for this, the Japanese navy stands poised to attack, and would be silly not to.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by Tanaka »

BillRunacre wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 2:39 pm Image

As this question has been raised, I thought it might be useful to make a post explaining how this campaign differs from the Pacific aspect of our WWII: World at War game.

Note that while the engine for WWII: World at War will in due course be upgraded, for the most part the campaign changes listed below will not be.

1) Japan’s allies are much more heavily featured:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=403321

2) China is more divided and troops will be needed both to maintain internal order and to fight the enemy:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7&t=404156

3) French forces in Indochina can now revolt against the Japanese.

4) The Doolittle raid can now be launched.

5) Ports on islands now provide less supply to naval units, making things more realistic.

6) A new research category has been added called Naval Construction, allowing for port supply on small islands to be increased (think Seabees).

7) Having naval superiority in “The Slot” is now important to winning the battle for control of Guadalcanal in the Solomons.

8) There are now Battleships and Super Battleships, the latter being for ships like the Yamato and the Iowa class.

9) Japan’s Light Cruisers and both side’s Super Battleships have an increased spotting range at sea to reflect their use of spotting planes.

10) There are no Long Range Amphibious Transports in this campaign, so invasions require more planning and will be more effective the less time the troops spend at sea – making limited island hopping possible, while rendering long range missions effectively impossible.

11) Coupled with the above, unless they capture Hawaii, Japanese units to the east of the island will suffer penalties due to being far from home.

12) Naval units now have significantly increased Zones of Control, making it easier to protect vulnerable ships such as your Carriers and invasion forces.

13) Additionally, naval retreat ranges and the chances of ships retreating have been increased significantly, improving the “feel” of naval battles.

14) A second new research category is Submarine Warfare. Neither the US nor Japanese submarine fleets engaged in many attacks on merchant shipping early in the war, and only the US began doing so as the war progressed.

Consequently to reflect this, both sides can now change their Submarine units’ doctrines as the war progresses, increasing both the size and raiding capabilities of their submarine fleet in order to better target enemy convoy routes.

15) Airfields have been introduced to many Pacific islands, and units occupying them benefit from increases in their range and effectiveness. This makes these useful places to station Maritime Bombers to watch for enemy shipping. It does of course also make them important places to fight over, and to give just one example: Henderson Field does tend to be very intensely fought over, just as it was in real life.

16) Victory Conditions will change as the campaign progresses, and both sides should have a good chance of winning. Japan does not need to conquer everything in order to win, so it can make for a high intensity experience if they get to close to victory before the US has fully got its amphibious invasion forces into position to make a difference.

17) Australia is now a Major power.

18) Communist China can expand as the war progresses should the conditions allow it.

19) If the Allies can capture Lorengau then Rabaul can be effectively isolated.

20) Strategic Bombers are less effective.

21) There are lots of new Decision to take based on new research into the war, and this campaign also comes with a 40-page Strategy Guide full of useful information, including a list of all the National Morale locations with coordinates.

Image

Hopefully I have captured all the important differences here, because after working on the Pacific for months on end and making literally hundreds of changes before beta even began, it can be hard to remember everything. I will of course update this if it does transpire that I missed something important, so please tell me if I have!
Great list thank you for putting this together. Do you know yet what changes will be ported over or is that still in planning?

I really like the port and airfield changes and hope this will be ported over most of all. I think we have all wanted to get rid of the LR Amphibs and the gamey tactics they introduce. Pretty much all of the naval changes would be great to be included. And of course many have requested a nerf to strategic bombers,

Also I have a suggestion to make island hopping more important:

Coupled with the above, unless they capture these islands, American units to the west of these islands will suffer penalties due too being far from home.

The new turn clock is one you did not mention...
Last edited by Tanaka on Mon Jul 22, 2024 7:08 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
OldCrowBalthazor
Posts: 2686
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:42 am
Location: Republic of Cascadia

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by OldCrowBalthazor »

Thanks for this comparison, Bill.

May help with repeatedly trying to explain the differences over and over, especially on Steam, where there be trolls that jump in and pontificate without any knowledge at all. Easy to just link them to this.............
My YouTube Channel: Balthazor's Strategic Arcana
https://www.youtube.com/c/BalthazorsStrategicArcana
SC-War in the Pacific Beta Tester
SC-ACW Beta Tester
1904 Imperial Sunrise Tester
SC-WW1 Empires in Turmoil DLC Tester
Tester of various SC Mods
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by Tanaka »

OldCrowBalthazor wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 9:24 pm Thanks for this comparison, Bill.

May help with repeatedly trying to explain the differences over and over, especially on Steam, where there be trolls that jump in and pontificate without any knowledge at all. Easy to just link them to this.............
What? Trolls on Steam? Never!
Image
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by BillRunacre »

Tanaka wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 7:56 pm Great list thank you for putting this together. Do you know yet what changes will be ported over or is that still in planning?

I really like the port and airfield changes and hope this will be ported over most of all. I think we have all wanted to get rid of the LR Amphibs and the gamey tactics they introduce. Pretty much all of the naval changes would be great to be included. And of course many have requested a nerf to strategic bombers,

Also I have a suggestion to make island hopping more important:

Coupled with the above, unless they capture these islands, American units to the east of these islands will suffer penalties due too being far from home.

The new turn clock is one you did not mention...
True, I hadn't thought of mentioning the new turn clock as it is more a feature of the engine, rather than specific to the campaign itself, but that is an extra benefit.

In terms of changes that will be implemented in the campaigns for WAW and WiE, the list isn't final yet but it will be limited. The following points are the most likely:

12) Naval units now have significantly increased Zones of Control, making it easier to protect vulnerable ships such as your Carriers and invasion forces.

13) Additionally, naval retreat ranges and the chances of ships retreating have been increased significantly, improving the “feel” of naval battles.

20) Strategic Bombers are less effective.
Last edited by BillRunacre on Fri Aug 02, 2024 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
User avatar
Tanaka
Posts: 5083
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2003 3:42 am
Location: USA

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to our WWII: World at War game

Post by Tanaka »

BillRunacre wrote: Mon Jul 22, 2024 6:57 am
Tanaka wrote: Sun Jul 21, 2024 7:56 pm Great list thank you for putting this together. Do you know yet what changes will be ported over or is that still in planning?

I really like the port and airfield changes and hope this will be ported over most of all. I think we have all wanted to get rid of the LR Amphibs and the gamey tactics they introduce. Pretty much all of the naval changes would be great to be included. And of course many have requested a nerf to strategic bombers,

Also I have a suggestion to make island hopping more important:

Coupled with the above, unless they capture these islands, American units to the east of these islands will suffer penalties due too being far from home.

The new turn clock is one you did not mention...
True, I hadn't thought of mentioning the new turn clock as it is more a feature of the engine, rather than specific to the campaign itself, but that is an extra benefit.

In terms of changes that will be implemented in the campaigns for WAW and WiE, the list isn't final yet but it will be limited. The following points are the most likely, though 6 will probably just be for WAW:

5) Ports on islands now provide less supply to naval units, making things more realistic.

6) A new research category has been added called Naval Construction, allowing for port supply on small islands to be increased (think Seabees).

12) Naval units now have significantly increased Zones of Control, making it easier to protect vulnerable ships such as your Carriers and invasion forces.

13) Additionally, naval retreat ranges and the chances of ships retreating have been increased significantly, improving the “feel” of naval battles.

20) Strategic Bombers are less effective.
Great thanks Bill! Another one I thought of that seems to be new are the coast watchers if I am not mistaken?
Image
User avatar
BillRunacre
Posts: 6512
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 2:57 pm
Contact:

Re: How 1941 Day of Infamy compares to WWII: World at War

Post by BillRunacre »

Yes, the Coast Watchers are new, good spot, I'll add them in.
Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FurySoftware

We're also on Facebook! https://www.facebook.com/FurySoftware/
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command WWII: War in the Pacific”