THE ultimate WW2 grand strategy game

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

One question for all of you. What is the good unit scale, in your opinion, for this kind of game?

. High level like Fronts (USSR) facing Armies (GER)
. Medium level like Armies (USSR) facing Corps (GER)
. Detailed level like Corps (USSR) facing Division (GER)

I do not think a level under division is convenient for such games but you may have a different opinion.

warspite1

Again I come back to MWIF. Armies and Corps as the standard (depending upon the army) and with divisional chrome works really well. But yes, on computer, I would like to see divisional units so that I can come over all unnecessary when I see units such as this....[&o][&o][&o][&o]


Wessex Wyverns

[rico21]

A wwII strategy game which does not use enemy equipment captured in its OOB is not credible.[:-]

[aaatoysandmore]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

HOI is interesting for years between 1936 and 1939. But, as soon as war is starting, I am overwhelmed by the number of things to do in real time missing plenty of things. That is why I prefer turn based game to have the time to think.

Have to agree with you there and that real time thing; only Crusader Kings II did it well with the time and it was much easier to learn and play. It had a very slow setting that made it playable.

[rico21]

A wwII strategy game without the role of women in anti-aircraft units defending their national territory is not credible.[:-]

[Rosseau]

I'm pretty disappointed about the progress of these games in general, although I believe SC WW2 is going to meet its design goals. The others I am not so sure about.

I think the capabilities are there to create an incredible game/simulation with solid AI, but due to the limited funds these games generate, we will not see this happen. Dedicated computer programmers can comment much better of course, and would love to hear their opinions. Mainly because another 10 years or so, and I am out of the picture altogether as a player!

For me personally, Command Modern Naval Air Ops is the most sophisticated simulation we have.

[FirstPappy]

ORIGINAL: rico21

A wwII strategy game without the role of women in anti-aircraft units defending their national territory is not credible.[:-]

A picture of Jane Fonda just popped into my head.

[JReb]

A WWII strategy thread without a comment from Rico21 is not credible. [:-] [:'(] [:D]

[RFalvo69]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

HOI is interesting for years between 1936 and 1939. But, as soon as war is starting, I am overwhelmed by the number of things to do in real time missing plenty of things. That is why I prefer turn based game to have the time to think.

Have you ever tried to pause the game and to give orders taking your time while the game is paused?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would start with the greatest game ever made – War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

I fixed that for you mate.

Seriously, OP, any list of strategic wargames without the aforementioned is seriously flawed. This is absolutely the shizzle-nizzle as far as I'm concerned.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: rico21

A wwII strategy game without German Kampfgruppe is not credible. [:-]

Ummm....I think the War in the Pacific was underserved by German Kampfgruppe. Not too many of those on Papua/New Guinea. [&:]

[rico21]

Ummm....I did not know that an ULTIMATE grand strategic game on WWII was happening exclusively in the Pacific.[&:]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would start with the greatest game ever made – World In Flames

Seriously, OP, any list of strategic wargames without the aforementioned is seriously flawed. This is absolutely the shizzle-nizzle as far as I'm concerned.

warspite1

+1

[rico21]

A wwII strategy game that leaves time to post is not credible.[:-][:D]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: RFalvo69

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

HOI is interesting for years between 1936 and 1939. But, as soon as war is starting, I am overwhelmed by the number of things to do in real time missing plenty of things. That is why I prefer turn based game to have the time to think.

Have you ever tried to pause the game and to give orders taking your time while the game is paused?

Yes I did. The thing is that there are so much units to move plus production/research/... that I am always missing something. I miss a button to browse all my units like in TOAW to be sure I have not forgot an unit.

But, I must admit I have played to HOI and a lot to HOI2. I have never played to HOI3 and HOI4. May be it is better now.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would start with the greatest game ever made – War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

I fixed that for you mate.

Seriously, OP, any list of strategic wargames without the aforementioned is seriously flawed. This is absolutely the shizzle-nizzle as far as I'm concerned.

Interesting, I have not listed WITP-AE nor WITE/WITW because I am not considering them as strategic wargames but more operational wargames. But, with its Japanese production, WITP-AE could be considered indeed as a strategic wargame.

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e
One question for all of you. What is the good unit scale, in your opinion, for this kind of game?
. High level like Fronts (USSR) facing Armies (GER)
. Medium level like Armies (USSR) facing Corps (GER)
. Detailed level like Corps (USSR) facing Division (GER)

Ideally, I would prefer medium level.

But realistically I want an enjoyable computer wargame that is playable and replayable. This means relatively bug-free, challenging computer opponent, and playable within a reasonable time (days-weeks, not months-years). So realistically, high level would be fine.

Too many games try to do too much, like A Bridge Too Far, and ultimately players end up with a game not worth playing. MWiF should (will?) be fine as a medium level game with its optional additional detail but it's taking forever to complete. So we wait. Might as well try for a high level game too, yes?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

One question for all of you. What is the good unit scale, in your opinion, for this kind of game?

. High level like Fronts (USSR) facing Armies (GER)
. Medium level like Armies (USSR) facing Corps (GER)
. Detailed level like Corps (USSR) facing Division (GER)

I do not think a level under division is convenient for such games but you may have a different opinion.

warspite1

Again I come back to MWIF. Armies and Corps as the standard (depending upon the army) and with divisional chrome works really well. But yes, on computer, I would like to see divisional units so that I can come over all unnecessary when I see units such as this....[&o][&o][&o][&o]


Wessex Wyverns

Do you think the medium level, aka Armies & Corps, works well for the pacific theater and for all these battles on those small lovely islands?

[altipueri]

I think the division is the correct unit size for a strategic game, hence why Hearts of Iron 1 and 2 or its mods e.g. Darkest Hour or Arsenal of Democracy are probably about right. There's just not enough time to play these games. I've got so many I've hardly touched.

The enemy is time.

[rico21]

I want to play this Island Strategic game...[:)]

[RodyMetal]

For strategic game, I prefer the unit size to be Armies, corps could be fine also, lower than that it will be felt more like operational mixed with strategic elements, that is the problem with HOI3, while HOI4 used divisions level it also introduces battle planning system, which it is the best system IF it works well.

[Neilster]

Do you think the medium level, aka Armies & Corps, works well for the pacific theater and for all these battles on those small lovely islands?

Divisions can be employed in MWiF and they are highly appropriate for the island war in the Pacific. In general corps/armies work very well in a strategic WW2 game.

When it's finished, it will be hard to beat as a WW2 grand strategy game. It's fun to play now but is still a bit buggy and is missing features; the most obvious of which is an AI.

Cheers, Neilster