First impressions anyone?

[GeorgePatton]

Notwithstanding some minor hiccups (i.e., lack of detailed naval/land/air loss reports), I really do like this game so far after having played my first campaign game up to Nov 1940. 

I am wondering though if there are any national restrictions on units operating beyond their borders (e.g., not allowing Bulgarian units to operate anywhere in Russia as they historically did not etc) or having Finns only operate as far as Leningrad area but not to go beyond it (i.e., the Finns wanted only to recover their lost lands in the 1939 war).

Right now I'm seeing Iraqi units in Libya cooperating with the British [:D] Did Iraqi units serve with the Brits in North Africa?

I realize that the game has to be abstracted so these issues would only be very minor points.

Overall I give it thumbs up! Definitely worth getting.

7.5/10

[lomyrin]

In the 1939 campaign game the Germans are able to build units in the western cities and use them to go after Netherlands, Belgium and France long before the historical time frame and the unfreezing of the border area units.  Is this an ovesight or is it intended ?
 
Being used to World in Flames there are no restrictions of this sort.
 
 

[cpdeyoung]

Notes on play of games on this level, especially influenced by "Road to Victory" :

Some of the points being raised have to do with events and patterns that occur in games of ToW, but did not occur in the actual Second World War. I think if a player sets all nations to human control it would be possible to come pretty close to simulating the war as it happened. Some AARs of RtV came close to the feel of the occurences in the war. However we all play the game in hindsight. The game is structured to be a contest between three coalitions, generously calling the Soviet Union a coallition, that nation without a friend. The players too, are seeing a conflict in the East as inevitable, and so we play to get the edge on the original decisions. It is a rare Axis player who will sit contemplating the shores of the Channel for all the months Hitler did. It is a rare Soviet player who will trust the Germans. You can, however, play these patterns and the game should be a more or less successful simulation.

If the events were changed I think we could simulate World War One with this engine, and I have modified RtV to start before the events of Munich occured. After multiple plays the "normal" pattern of events is going to be stale. You will play as well as possible and operations will run as clockwork. I tend to take the situation I am given and try to play optimally, moving the forces under my command without concern for where they went actually. This gives me N games, but then I have to try variants, such as taking the USA out of the war, which can be done quite easily with F12 to adjust production points.

I have a technique which I think gives a very good gaming experience against the AI. I play one side until I see a tipping point. Perhaps this would be an Axis observation that 'Unless the French plug that hole I will have a breakthrough". At that point I save the game and continue as the Axis, watching the breakthrough occur. Later I go back to that saved game and set the Allies to human control, the Axis to the AI, and then I try and hold off the very invasion I was so successful with. Frequent saves will give you interesting points to play turnaround. If you try this I think you will have favorite saved points, which resemble scenarios. It works very well for me.

With all the possibilities this game will repay the time you invest many times over, at least it has for me.

Chuck

[micheljq]

ORIGINAL: GeorgePatton

Right now I'm seeing Iraqi units in Libya cooperating with the British [:D] Did Iraqi units serve with the Brits in North Africa?

Iraq was occupied by British troops because his government was not enough Pro-Commonwealth. I think there was a coup and a Pro-Axis government was in place, so the british did send forces and occupied the country.

[SlickWilhelm]

Personally, I'm glad to hear that things are not unfolding in everyone's game just like it happened historically. The point of a good wargame, IMO, is to give the correct historical setup and then allow us to make all the historical decisions as really happened....or not.

I wouldn't look at the French using their tanks in mass formations as an AI "mistake". I would look at it as a positive sign that the AI is smarter than the real French high command was in using their assets! [:D]

I really love the decision by the design team to allow us to play as one of the small countries. I just bought the game on Friday, and that's how I plan to start learning the ropes. 

[Gloo]

I just played for about an hour now but I've got a "first impression" yet [:D]

Globally I'd say I need to play a couple of hours more, before I'd say that I like the game. For now, I've got a mixed feeling about it. Seems to be deep and entertaining but I'd say it lacks a bit of polishing, on the corners. Some details tend to give me the impression it's been marketed a bit too early. Details like some options missing, the text files overlapping some info boxes and so on. I wouldn't say it's a showstopper for me in any way, for the core of this game sure is appealing !

I don't think I'll change my mind and finally say that's not a game to own and play, though. I'm already pretty sure I'll like it more when it is patched. I'll probably say it's one of the best war games I've played recently (and I played a lot...) but for now it's only an impression, not a certainty [:)]

I'll give my final thoughts here when the first patch is released and if you can read French, you'll have my full review at your disposal on Cyberstratège a few days earlier... [;)]

[Gloo]

ORIGINAL: Slick Wilhelm
I would look at it as a positive sign that the AI is smarter than the real French high command was...

You can still use a Present form here, as a matter of fact...[:D]