Computer War in Europe

[TemKarl]

With the 68th anniversary of the German invasion of Russia almost here, there is a new Demo version of "War In Europe - Windows Version" featuring the 1941 War in the East campaign now available for download :[/align] [/align]http://www.decisiongames.com/demo-1.1.00.exe[/align] [/align]The demo will allow you play the first 2 months of Operation Barbarossa, including the first two Russian Production cycles (the previous Demo did not include production).[/align] [/align] [/align]

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
Did yo uactually buy it? If so how is it?

I bought it pre-order and have been playing it pretty much non-stop since it was released. I am currently in a PBEM game against Halsey, another WitP fanatic like me from these forums. The initial learning curve is steep if you've never actually played the board game as I hadn't, but it is nowhere near as complex or difficult to learn as a game like WitP.

I found once I'd fully read the manual and played about 1 year of the game, everything had become second nature to me. I can now do an average turn in about 15 - 30 minutes, depending on how active the war is. Clear turns in the spring and summer are very busy turns, mud and snow turns, not so much.

Overall, I enjoy the game a lot. My only gripe is one with the air point system the game uses. It's too all or nothing for my tastes. As an example, it is futile as the western allies to try and contest the air space in the west zone in the early game. If you place points in the air superiority box, they'll simply be overwhelmed and annihilated by the far more numerous German points.

So what you have to do is stand down your air points and build up strength until after Germany attacks France and the low countries, which means you concede the air totally to Germany. Then you send everything up when he attacks France and there are a few turns of combat until one side or the other becomes clearly dominate. Then the losing side stands down and begins building up its strength, thus totally conceding the air space.

I'd prefer a system that wasn't so devastating to air strength and allowed both sides to keep a continual air presence no matter how outnumbered they are. But the 1/6th chance each air point assigned to air superiority has to shoot down an enemy air point means the more outnumbered you are the faster you get destroyed. Basically it's like Risk, every point you have gets to roll a die.

Now don't get me wrong, the system works in game as designed, and it does follow historical expectations. Germany is dominate early on when it needs to be, so it can land in Norway and take out France. The western allies build up dominance eventually in time to counter-attack in Africa. Russia gets blown away in 41, but like the allies it too eventually builds up enough strength to contest the air by the first winter. And by spring 42 the axis regains superiority in Russia again, etc. etc.

I would just prefer a more detailed air game. But I guess I'm spoiled by all the air unit detail in WitP and miss it.

I'd recommend this game to anyone interested in a good old fashioned board game on the PC. There are a few minor bugs, but from what I've read on the forum for the game, these are being squashed almost as soon as they have been reported, and a patch will hopefully be out soon.

Jim

[treespider]

Now I think I know what I'm getting for my B-day!!!! Very interesting....thanks for the posts guys.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

As an example, it is futile as the western allies to try and contest the air space in the west zone in the early game.

If you place points in the air superiority box, they'll simply be overwhelmed and annihilated by the far more numerous German points.

But you have missed something! (see screen shot in a post above. That is a Soviet screen shot and 13 APs are available for use.).


Say the Allies place 12 Air Points ("AP") in the air superiority box

Each AP rolls one dice. The Axis know that mathematically they will lose 2AP in the combat. And due to bad luck will probably lose 2 more. The Axis need 6 in the air superiority box to stop the Allies gaining air superiority and therefore the Axis player must place 10 in the Air Superiority box.

Thats 10 air points that cannot be used for ground support and it takes just a bit longer before France falls!

On the other hand if the Allies have fewer air points in the later stages of the game, it takes just a bit longer before Berlin falls.

One of the grand decisions in a Grand Strategy game.
-

[Titanwarrior89]

QuestionS?

1. Whats the scale?
2. How does weather work?
3. Do you have to have the disc in to run it?
4. How is the naval game?
5. Does terrian effect combat as well as movement?

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Barthheart
Did yo uactually buy it? If so how is it?

I bought it pre-order and have been playing it pretty much non-stop since it was released. I am currently in a PBEM game against Halsey, another WitP fanatic like me from these forums. The initial learning curve is steep if you've never actually played the board game as I hadn't, but it is nowhere near as complex or difficult to learn as a game like WitP.

I found once I'd fully read the manual and played about 1 year of the game, everything had become second nature to me. I can now do an average turn in about 15 - 30 minutes, depending on how active the war is. Clear turns in the spring and summer are very busy turns, mud and snow turns, not so much.

Overall, I enjoy the game a lot. My only gripe is one with the air point system the game uses. It's too all or nothing for my tastes. As an example, it is futile as the western allies to try and contest the air space in the west zone in the early game. If you place points in the air superiority box, they'll simply be overwhelmed and annihilated by the far more numerous German points.

So what you have to do is stand down your air points and build up strength until after Germany attacks France and the low countries, which means you concede the air totally to Germany. Then you send everything up when he attacks France and there are a few turns of combat until one side or the other becomes clearly dominate. Then the losing side stands down and begins building up its strength, thus totally conceding the air space.

I'd prefer a system that wasn't so devastating to air strength and allowed both sides to keep a continual air presence no matter how outnumbered they are. But the 1/6th chance each air point assigned to air superiority has to shoot down an enemy air point means the more outnumbered you are the faster you get destroyed. Basically it's like Risk, every point you have gets to roll a die.

Now don't get me wrong, the system works in game as designed, and it does follow historical expectations. Germany is dominate early on when it needs to be, so it can land in Norway and take out France. The western allies build up dominance eventually in time to counter-attack in Africa. Russia gets blown away in 41, but like the allies it too eventually builds up enough strength to contest the air by the first winter. And by spring 42 the axis regains superiority in Russia again, etc. etc.

I would just prefer a more detailed air game. But I guess I'm spoiled by all the air unit detail in WitP and miss it.

I'd recommend this game to anyone interested in a good old fashioned board game on the PC. There are a few minor bugs, but from what I've read on the forum for the game, these are being squashed almost as soon as they have been reported, and a patch will hopefully be out soon.

Jim

[Fred98]

1. Whats the scale?


About 30k to the hex



2. How does weather work?

Each hex is designated a “climate” from arid desert through to artic.
There are 4 seasons.
Given the season and the climate there is a high chance, medium chance or low chance of good/bad weather.
Bad weather affects movement and combat




3. Do you have to have the disc in to run it?

No



4. How is the naval game?

Abstracted but works fine.



5. Does terrain effect combat as well as movement?

Yes. Difficult terrain have combat modifier of -1 and an attack across the river has the same. And bad weather produces more modifiers.

-

[Titanwarrior89]

Thanks Joe. Sounds good. If your wondering about number three(3). matrix and Ageod have spoiled me. I hate hunting down my disc. I like click and go-after install.

[Rodwell]

I must admit this sounds very tempting while waiting for WiF.

Is there an active PBEM community?

[JeffroK]

I've been through both WIEast & WIW boardgames in the SPI days and regularly played them solo or FtF.

An excellent and simple system.

I also got the original CWIEurope and again, it was a simple system and easy to play.

I got the Poland demo and was a bit put off, more chrome without extra value. Maybe the larger Barbarossa demo offered will display the game better.

It may get a sale from me as waiting for WITP is becoming tedious.

[Fred98]

ORIGINAL: Rodwell

Is there an active PBEM community?

The game has no AI and this attracted me to the game because it means everybody plays PBEM [:)]

-

[Fred98]

There is a Scenario named Kursk. It is 18 turns long.

I have now played it by PBEM from both sides against 2 different people. This is a sort of combined AAR of the 2 games.

We start with the victory conditions.



The Axis need to hold Russian Personnel Centres (“RPC”) at the end of the game as follows:

8 or more = Axis victory
6 or 7 = a draw
5 or less = a Russian victory.

As the scenario opens, the Axis already holds 7 RPC’s. The Axis need to capture 1 more RPC for a victory. The Russians need to re-capture 2 RPC for a victory.

Looking at the map, there are 3 the Moscow area.






And there are 4 in the south of the map. Kharkov begins in Axis hands and Stalingrad is impossible to capture in this scenario so that leaves 2 to be fought over.



Leningrad is a RPC as is the city one hex to the northwest. But both are impossible to capture during the course of this particular Scenario.






As the scenario opens, there is a bulge around the city of Kursk. However Kursk is not a RPC. And therefore not a victory location.

But, just north of Kursk, is the city of Orel and this is a RPC. And so the Axis, need to attack the Kursk bulge from the north simply as a way of protecting Orel





In the first game, my Russian troops slowly withdrew from the Kursk salient and used the troops to defend the 2 RPCs in the south. My Axis opponent put a big effort into attempting to destroy the troops in the salient. Late in the game he attacked towards the RPCs in the south but they were by then well defended and the lines held.

So long as the Russians don’t lose too many troops in the Kursk salient, they have a powerful force. In the first game, after withdrawing troops from the Kursk salient, my Russian troops attacked Orel, just north of Kursk and ultimately it was not too hard to capture it.

In the second game, my Axis troops started by attacking the north shoulder of the Kursk salient. The idea was to push back the Soviets so that in the long run the RPC of Orel would remain in Axis hands. This seemed to be working but my canny Russian opponent stretched my forces across the map and ultimately Orel fell to the Soviets. So the city fell in both games.

Meanwhile, in the south, my Axis forces put in a big effort against the 2 RPC’s there and both were captured. However, due to using the attrition option, my Axis forces became weaker as the scenario went on and my Russian opponent recaptured one of them.

From the Russians point of view, the Kursk bulge is useful, in keeping occupied a large number of Axis troops, who might otherwise be attacking deep into the Russian motherland. And yet the troops therein are very useful in making counterattacks.

Air superiority plays a big part in this scenario. The Axis begin with 22 Air Points (“AP”) and the Russians begin with 13.

The Axis receive an average of 1.60 AP’s replacements per turn and the Russian receives 0.50

If the Axis begin the Scenario by placing 18 AP’s in the Air Superiority box and (and use the remainder for ground support) and the Russians place 12, this means mathematically, the Russians will lose 3 AP’s in air combat per turn and the Axis will lose 2.

As the Axis can replace their losses much quicker than the Russians, the Russians will run out of AP’s after only 5 turns!

Further, a canny Axis player will keep track of the AP’s lost by the Soviets and after a few turns place only 12 AP’s in the air superiority box leaving more to be used for ground support. Eventually he only needs to place 6 AP’s in the air superiority box per turn to account for those late game AP replacements the Russian receives.

Having read this, a canny Russian player, could begin by placing no AP’s in the air superiority box until such a time he has 18 available and then use them all in one go.

Then the following turn, remove all AP’s from the air superiority box until such time he has accumulated 18 AP’s and strike again!. This will keep the Axis player on his toes and cause him to place 18 AP’s in the air superiority box for most of the scenario. This means he has 12 fewer to use in the ground support role and should lead to a near automatic Russian victory.

As it turns out, in the first game my Soviets had a victory and in the second game my Axis troops held on for a draw. In this second game, we were helped in this by some bad weather which slowed the advance of the Russians.

I am a newby to this game system and this was a good learning experience.

[Titanwarrior89]

It seems War in Europe is about the same as the scenario-Europe Aflamed in The operation art of warfare 3. Does anyone know if they are closely related in game play?

[06 Maestro]

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

It seems War in Europe is about the same as the scenario-Europe Aflamed in The operation art of warfare 3. Does anyone know if they are closely related in game play?

I doubt it. The strategic scenarios in TOAW are stretching the system a wee bit. I played the Europe Aflame a few times in COW-I don't think it would be that much different now. Things such as special reinforcements can be made through events, sometimes in a rather crafty and intelligent way. However, compared to a game that is designed for production, research and other strategic concerns, TOAW is left wanting-it was not intended for such use. There are those that will never quit trying though.

Whether this new game conducts combat better than TOAW-I don't know. I tried the demo and was not immediately overtaken with interest. I will give it another shot later on, but it would really have to be a good game to justify that price w/o an ai.

One similarity those games have is that you actually have to tell each unit where to go (although you can hace stacks in TOAW). In this stage of warfare gaming, that similarity would not be something to brag about-especially for a strategic level game with many hundreds of units.

[Titanwarrior89]

I understand what your saying. I am trying to decide to buy or not buy Europe at War or just stay with TOAW. Thanks for the answer.

Your correct the price does hold me back as well without a AI.

[Fred98]

In Computer War in Europe, if units are ina stack you can give one move order to the whole stack. You do not have to give individual oredrs to each unit.
 
Also, imagine you move a unit 2 hexes so it is now stacked with other units, you can now give one move order to the whole stack.
 
Of course the stack will only move as far as the unit with the fewest movement points but this is a very convenient feature.
 
-
 
 
 

[Fred98]

[font="compatilfact lt regular"]Another feature this game has, that I had only ever seen in SSG’s games, when you complete a PBEM turn, the game automatically creates an email , addressed to you’re opponent, with the file attached, ready for sending.[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]Great feature![/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"]-[/font]
[font="compatilfact lt regular"] [/font]

[rhondabrwn]

Don't forget the HPS "First Blitzkrieg" and "Southern Front" games as another alternative. That series is going to be melded into a giant "War in Europe" game at some point. It doesn't have the strategic elements of CWIE such as production, but does have a more sophisticated airwar module. Graphically, I would give CWIE a slight edge, but the HPS games are very detailed historically and every unit is defined. CWIE doesn't really give you any detail about unit composition and tactically it's simpler than TOAW and the HPS series. For example, "First Blitzkrieg" specifically identifies every squadron and it's mission type and then you specifically allocate them to ground support when needed. CWIE has a button to click to "assign" one unit of air support and that's it... you can't add two units... and there is no identification of specific air units in the game at all. They are just air points being assigned. On the other hand, the CWIE combat display is easier to read and evaluate with TOAW a close second. The HPS games seem a bit more confusing about the relationship of combat odds to the actual results, but that may just be me.

I think TOAW plays easier overall. HPS has the historicity. CWIE has the superior strategic elements.

Your pick.

[JudgeDredd]

The price is a shame - but more than that is the postage. I may well have bought this at $60 - but the postage was another half again - just too damned expensive.

[Titanwarrior89]

Forgot about the HPS series. Would cost you more in the long haul though at 40.00 - 50.00 per game. Also how many months if not years into the future will the New series take before HPS gets to the final giant War in Europe. Your micro reviews below on the differences between each game got me to thinkings. Thanks[;)]

ORIGINAL: rhondabrwn

Don't forget the HPS "First Blitzkrieg" and "Southern Front" games as another alternative. That series is going to be melded into a giant "War in Europe" game at some point. It doesn't have the strategic elements of CWIE such as production, but does have a more sophisticated airwar module. Graphically, I would give CWIE a slight edge, but the HPS games are very detailed historically and every unit is defined. CWIE doesn't really give you any detail about unit composition and tactically it's simpler than TOAW and the HPS series. For example, "First Blitzkrieg" specifically identifies every squadron and it's mission type and then you specifically allocate them to ground support when needed. CWIE has a button to click to "assign" one unit of air support and that's it... you can't add two units... and there is no identification of specific air units in the game at all. They are just air points being assigned. On the other hand, the CWIE combat display is easier to read and evaluate with TOAW a close second. The HPS games seem a bit more confusing about the relationship of combat odds to the actual results, but that may just be me.

I think TOAW plays easier overall. HPS has the historicity. CWIE has the superior strategic elements.

Your pick.

[Titanwarrior89]

Well, I finally went and order the game "computer War in Europe". Hope its worth it. The cost really set me back. Always wanted to play the board game but never did.


Note: Joe 98, You sold me, so if I don't like it-it'll be your fault.[:D][X(]