Matrix Games Forums

The traditional wargaming fanboi responce: You should get both because they both provide a different perspective of play on the same war. While one is more direct and less micromanagement it is non-the-less entertaining and challenging. Sometimes you might enjoy the more direct approach given the amount of time that you have to play. WAW is a game you can play in one setting whereas a game like HOI2 is a game you might set aside a weekend for to play. They both have "sufficient" AI's on the higher difficulties, but, of course will never be the same challenge level as playing another human being. (although some human beings don't play as well as the AI anyways). HOI2 is more detailed and well it is also more abstract. There is no tactical combat and the outcomes of the battles are less than realistic in many cases. You can take any country in the game in HOI2 and take over the entire world if you are a "sufficient" player. I took Brazil and destroyed Italy and then Germany, it was quite fun.....once.

My preference is for authenticity and historical accuracy; I'm always optimistic when I read designer notes that describe a lot of research that went into OOBs, combat tables, command&control, game scale, etc. If numerous fine details and 100 page rulebooks get you there then I'm all for it ... but at the end of a four-hour gaming session I want to be able to look back over what happened in the game and believe that it could have happened that way in real life.

I've dabbled with HoI; played SC many times, immersed myself in W@W ... both have good points and bad points. W@W2 will have some nice new features that improve the flow of the game.

But for my money the best WWII grand strategy game is still World in Flames. Even with its board game origins, WiF is a more faithful recreation of WWII history than anything else on the street. And its coming back in a glorious Matrix computer version! Shannon OKeets is doing an amazing job keeping the community involved and informed on progress with this game ... check it out.

ORIGINAL: ladner

One thing I have noticed in many of these games, and back when I used to play War in Russia, I was guilty of having factories produce all Fw-190s instead of Me-109s, since the Fw-190 was a better plane, at least in game statistic terms. In a lot of these games this type of thing occurs, for example if you are Britain, why bother with the Hurricane, when the Spitfire is so much better.

There is already a solution to this in World in Flames. It's only part of it but the idea there is that you get a mix of units that you choose from randomly. You build a fighter and if lucky in 1941 you got a FW190 and if not you can still get an old Me-109. As there are more of the later at the beginning the chances are not even even.

I believe it would be easy to give a table by type of units with a percentage by subtype. Like in 1939 you have 75% change of getting a Me-109e, 15% of a less version and 10 percent of an old plane that I forgot the name but was still used. For the bomber you would do 60% Me111, 15 Ju-88, 20 Do-17 and 5% Condor or something like it. See the idea.

Then with your choice in research those %age will vary. Research Jet Engine since the beginning and you can get 5% Me262 in 1941 then 15% in 1942 and so while you scrap the older model.

You could even choose to scrap voluntarily older model at a cost for as you say restructuring the industry.

That way you don't end up with always the best planes but still a realistic variety with enough influence at a cost.

Now on my sense at a strategic level the subtype of plane is not that important but more the numbers and the type but of course it gives some flavors to the game.