Is it just me...or...?

[JiggyMcFly]

Did anyone else find the tutorials and manual to be rather lacking in instruction? I read the manual and did the tutorial twice, and was still confused on a few issues...

[marc420]

Matrix always expects their customers to always hunt around the message boards for info. It saves them the money to right any decent documentation when they get their customers to write everything up for them on these boards.

[ilovestrategy]

I think the forums are a good idea. All the info i have gotten over the last 4 weeks would have made a pretty thick book and a hefty price tag to boot.

[rhondabrwn]

ORIGINAL: marc420

Matrix always expects their customers to always hunt around the message boards for info. It saves them the money to right any decent documentation when they get their customers to write everything up for them on these boards.

There will never be a game manual written that satisfies everyone. It is either too simple for advanced players or too long and complex for beginners. Having a forum where problems and solutions can be posed and answered, where game strategies can be presented and evaluated, where AAR's can be shared, and historical data presented is not "getting their customers to write everything up for them".

As someone else said, if you take the info provided on these boards for ANY Matrix game, you will end up with quite a large amount of game data. I could not imagine anyone being able to forsee all the questions that come up in the forums and somehow anticipating them in the game manual. There is also no room for sample games like you find in the various AAR forums (I pulled one particularly interesting WiTP AAR off onto a PDF and it was well over 200 pages for the first year of the war).

I also enjoy playtesters and "master" players of various games who write articles on their own strategies and tactics. I've got pages and pages of WiTP tips.

If Matrix issued 1,000 page PDF manuals covering every possible eventuality someone would be here complaining that the manual was cumbersome and unusable.

Having said all of the above... I would like to see an edited compendium of forum tips and exceptional AAR's in PDF format that would be regularly updated and made available for download from the game page (just like a patch). I enjoy reading about my games as much (or more) than I do actually playing them. I am not saying that Matrix should create these files, only to make them available for download after a volunteer crew (forum administrators and players) assemble their "best of the forums". It is impossible to wade through the thousands of postings on your own to read everything so having knowledgeable players assembling "the best of the best" would be great!

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

Nice to see you here as well Rhonda (you used to participate in WitP forum)!

Did you buy the GGWaW?


Leo "Apollo11"

[pzgndr]

I recognize that games and manuals and tutorials are not always perfect upon release. Things evolve with each patch, and forum posts often highlight new strategies, plus various strengths and weaknesses in the game. But no one usually goes back to update those manuals and tutorials.

After Stategic Command had been out for about a year, I got a wild hair up my butt to put together a Strategy Guide. Seemed simple enough. I had plenty of game experience, the version notes for each of the half-dozen patches offered plenty of details, and the forum posts provided lots of great material. So just cut and paste here and there, add some common sense guidance, and viola! Uh, not quite that simple. That little project grew and grew into a 90-page PDF tome that became available for free download. It's amazing what fans can do when they really enjoy a game. Now I want payback. Who's gonna write the GGWAW Strategy Guide?? [:'(]

[WaterRabbit]

I was severely disappointed by the manual as well. The first Grigsby game I played was Kampfgruppe which was an excellent game for the time and had a wonderfully detailed manual. It broke down all of the factors used in the formulas and gave the formulas.

This is probably the worst manual I have encountered. Just start with the index – a critical item for any complex game. I can’t believe such a simple thing as getting the page numbers right could be over looked.

The order of presentation of the material is strange. Instead of placing items in order of use, they have laid them out by screen function.

Information is scattered all through out the manual. Information, such as the conditions under which countries unfreeze, placed in summary tables would have been the least they could have been done. Instead we have 7 blank pages for notes that could have been used for useful information.

The tutorials were basically worthless. They don’t really go beyond how to access a particular function. A better approach to a game this complex would have been to have smaller scenarios with obvious objectives so someone could build upon what they learned.

Smaller scenarios could have been placed in sub-Saharan Africa and South America to represent some of the conflicts that took place in those regions during this time and thus made use of portions of the map that aren’t really used in the full campaign.

While the WWII trivia blurbs in the manual were interesting, I would have preferred that space, plus the notes, be used for an extended example. That would have been more useful in integrating the different concepts used in the game.

On the game itself:

I can only give it a 5 out of 10. If this game was released in the late 90’s it would have stood out. When I picked it up I was hoping for something on the level of the Third Reich and Rising Sun board games combined. Instead it sits between Axis and Allies and Third Reich.

The interface is poorly designed and requires as many clicks to get through a turn as an RTS game. Game critical information is hard to find – if not impossible. Instead we get a worthless combat animation. This would have been useful IF the player could have done the match ups himself instead of them randomly determined by the computer. Instead, I bet most players just turn it off, probably before they have finished more than a turn or two.

It would also have been nice to have a system to readily find units that haven’t moved. When I play a board game, I turn all of my units in one direction to make sure I don’t miss any. It is annoying to have to click into each province to determine which units are there – especially since they don’t all follow the same stacking order. It’s like the design philosophy was that the player will get more enjoyment the harder he has to work and fight with the interface. Just take the zoom function. I would have been nice to be able to zoom in tighter and have more information displayed in each province, or zoom out larger without going as large as the strategic map which only shows squares. How about just placing a number in each province representing the combat value of the units therein?

It seems weird that no diplomatic system was put into place at all. Instead China is given ‘World Power’ status, which to play China in any game would be dreadfully dull. It would have been better if China was treated as a neutral that could be influenced by diplomacy ala Advanced Third Reich.

Another big disappointment was no variant options. Instead we have a game that plays pretty much as to how WWII went. So, even without the Axis AV conditions, there is little incentive for the Axis to continue playing once the USSR and the USA crank up. This however is a problem with most games at this level. Either the Axis has won by ’43 or the best they can do is tie. At least Advanced Third Reich allows the player to explore some ‘What Ifs’. It seems like a crime to leave such a thing out of a computer game which would allow a player to try some more crazy options.

Finally, I find unit supply to be annoying at this level. Theatre supply has its problems as well, but it’s more suited to a game at this level. Why am I required to micromanage supply and logistics but not combat?

This is a game that showed much promise, but as usual in the computer gaming industry, it fails to live up to that promise.

[SeaMonkey]

Man where is that pioneering spirit, that irrestible human trait to investigate, ie "to find out for oneself".

Humans,...especially the western variety have gotten just plain "Lazy". "Man I don't want to be a trailblazer", "Let someone else do the legwork", yeh!!!! delegate the responsibility to be responsible. (the rise of lawyers)

And if it is written, it must be true, authoritorians never lie...make mistakes...and if they do there must be some conspiracy...some hidden agenda.

Whooooaaa!!!! where's the duct tape my head is about to explode.

[WaterRabbit]

How about where is the time? I have little free time as it is, trying to wade through a poorly written manual before I can even begin the process of discovery is quite frustrating. I play ASL and have no fear of manuals or exploration.

Your comments are lazy generalizations in and of themselves and the conspiracy is all in your head. You are just another lazy person who finds it easier to attack the poster than to rebutt the post.

[SeaMonkey]

Come on WR, this is all a matter of priorities. Belay that ASL and devote your time to discovering WaW.

I understand the time issue....I sympathize.....I'm at work now, its 2100hrs, 22 or 3 before I'm out of here...started at 0800.

WR, your expectations are to high...yes...I admit I speak in generalities....after 54 years of observations, I'm somewhat conditioned to human frailties.

Welcome to the world of rampant incompetence, but creating a perspective from rational comparisons....well.......the manual isn't all that bad.[;)]

[Paul Vebber]

Why am I required to micromanage supply and logistics but not combat?

You aren't. Just play on simple supply or turn supply off entirely.

[ilovestrategy]

Well, I have to say I'm no novice to wargames, I have been playing them for about 12 years or so. And i have to say, I thoroughly enjoy WaW. Yeah, the manual is small but the game is only $40 retail. And after a couple of games, i picked up just about everything. And on the forums there are aways people ready to give any advice or answer any questions [:-]. Good job matrix! [:)]

[Battlebyte]

The manual layout is a bit confusing, but it explains the game mechanics, which is more than I've come to expect. I remember Microprose's M1A1 Tank Platoon; it came with a 200 page manual most of which was historical, technical, and tactical info rather than game related...but those days are long gone. Most games that I get now don't even come with a manual, or have little more than a list of which key does what.

ORIGINAL: WaterRabbit

I can only give it a 5 out of 10. If this game was released in the late 90’s it would have stood out. When I picked it up I was hoping for something on the level of the Third Reich and Rising Sun board games combined. Instead it sits between Axis and Allies and Third Reich.

But it wasn't meant to be the A3R+RS game. (A PBeM engine for that is at http://www.warplanner.com/) I love those games, but don't have the time for them. I like A&A but want something deeper. GGWAW fills that void between A&A and A3R+RS nicely.

The interface is poorly designed and requires as many clicks to get through a turn as an RTS game. Game critical information is hard to find – if not impossible. [...] It would also have been nice to have a system to readily find units that haven’t moved. [...] It is annoying to have to click into each province to determine which units are there – especially since they don’t all follow the same stacking order.

It's not a click&twitch RTS. Almost all of the info can be found by using the buttons at the top of the screen. And just mouseover the provinces to see what units are there. Units which have moved are marked with a red or blue arrow. The only thing I find missing is a brief summary report of what happened (who invaded where, how many total units each nation lost and built, how the economic balance changed, etc) since the beginning of your last turn. Perhaps some graphs to plot summary statistics over time. I would've preferred that over the combat animations.

It seems weird that no diplomatic system was put into place at all. Instead China is given ‘World Power’ status, which to play China in any game would be dreadfully dull. It would have been better if China was treated as a neutral that could be influenced by diplomacy ala Advanced Third Reich.

That does seem weird. I would've liked A3R-style diplomacy for influencing U.S. and Soviet entry along with neutral activation.

But I think I understand why they made China a player-power. It wasn't neutral and has different dynamics from the neutrals. It's actively engaged in war from before the beginning, and represents one of Japan's two or three primary opponents.

[Paul Vebber]

That does seem weird.

The design was based on being "strategy - based" not "luck - based" - adding the additional complexity to involve complicated diplomatic interactions was thought to complicate the game in ways that detracted from that design intent.

Variability in almost all forms except combat results was left out by design in favor of set interactions, that as it is, can be quite complex and have ramifications it took many months for folks to reason through - like the "Bomber response" to the Japanese invasion of the SU to trigger the US to come in.


The game engine is very flexible and if the game continues to do well, future games in the series will touch on other eras (The Civil War is already coming along nicely) and add the sort of "advanced features" that were deliberately left out of WaW to make it more accessible, and to give those who want a true test of strategic thinking.

That aspect of the game has made it attractive to the Naval War College, who I'm working with to possibly use the game to support classroom instruction.

I would've liked A3R-style diplomacy for influencing U.S. and Soviet entry along with neutral activation.

Good things come to those ... We ain't but barely started with what 2by3 want to do with this game engine!

[WaterRabbit]

ORIGINAL: Paul Vebber

Why am I required to micromanage supply and logistics but not combat?

You aren't. Just play on simple supply or turn supply off entirely.

Except of course, that to do either would change the basic premise of the game -- even with warnings in the manual about it.

I guess I was expecting a game more like A3R+RS -- more of a strategic game and not a high operational game with some strategic elements.

Variability in almost all forms except combat results was left out by design in favor of set interactions, that as it is, can be quite complex and have ramifications it took many months for folks to reason through - like the "Bomber response" to the Japanese invasion of the SU to trigger the US to come in.

Variability does not always equate to luck. Many games have variability and they don’t rely on luck to achieve it. Variability leads to replayability. If I get 5 sessions from this game I will be happy since there is not much replayability to it.

However, to each his own, if some people think this is the best game since sliced bread then more power to them. To me this is just another Matrix game that just didn't hit the mark. Again, this game would have been a great game in the late 90's, but it feels dated to me in 2005. Frankly, I have basically played this game in a slightly different form as a scenario in Civilization 3. IMHO, Civ 3 has a few more options because of its editor.

[Paul Vebber]

Except of course, that to do either would change the basic premise of the game -- even with warnings in the manual about it.

ah, see you did get something out of the manual! [:'(]

I guess I was expecting a game more like A3R+RS -- more of a strategic game and not a high operational game with some strategic elements.

I don;t think any of our advertising or anything on this forum shold have lead you to believe you were getting A3R+RS (which to be technically correct is a high operational game with strategic elements, WaW is much more a strategic game with a n emphasis on logistics)

Variability does not always equate to luck.

Which is why i used teh term and not 'luck'. If you give teh game a chance I think you will find that like chess, with no "variability" and very high replayability - even when you get the "strategy" part done it is difficult to execute the strategy flawlessly.

Having palyed several doen pbem and probably 50+ games vs the Ai the game follows a different course in some major respect every time.

You are entitled to your opinion, and not every game is for everybody, but your characterization of the game as "just a scen of civ3" is not very defensible.