Game is balanced against the Allies

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

User avatar
carnifex
Posts: 1294
Joined: Mon Jul 01, 2002 8:47 pm
Location: Latitude 40° 48' 43N Longtitude 74° 7' 29W

RE: Game is balanced against the Allies

Post by carnifex »

Yes, if he had planned to do solely and 'overrun' from the very start rather than figuring out that he couldnt kill them later on, he might have had the mass to do so. But to me, the point is that it is AWFULLY silly to have to resort to such a strategy in the first place.

I believe that this strategy is actually closer to the one employed by the Allies than launching attrition attacks. The Germans were very good at blowing up the Allied tanks, but there were just too many of them, and so they were forced to retreat.

I do agree that the German player sitting on a ton of supply in the end game is highly unrealistic. There should be a way to target supply units via air strikes and/or supply units should take casualties proportional to the damage done vs ground units.

Supply shortages were one of the main reasons for the final collapse and a factor in the German inability to maintain offensive operations, something that doesn't seem to occur in the end game here.

A smart German player seeing the noose tighten will spend the last few turns building up an inexhaustible supply depot.
User avatar
Uncle_Joe
Posts: 1117
Joined: Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:15 pm

RE: Game is balanced against the Allies

Post by Uncle_Joe »

Well, the reason for all the supply is that most of the units just arent necessary by that point and just die out. The tanks, some Fighters, and maybe a little research is all I needed. Everything else could roll over into supplies.

If Tanks werent so hard to kill, the need to replace losses would prevent extended accumulation of supplies. As it is, losing at most 1-2 tanks per battle (only damaged at that) meant a lot of extra production for supply.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”