Matrix Games Forums

I never was interested in World at War or Strategic Command. Whereas WitP (one day turns, the need to manage every ship and sub unit and an overburdened AI which, since the days of PW, tends to get its Kido Butai always sunk north of New Guinea in the Grand Campaign) is too detailed for me, the former ones just aren't detailed enough.

Like I wrote before: WIR and PW just got the right amount of detail for me. I love the fact that units are made up of number of inf squads, Arty, AT, that the tank bns of a Div/corps can have different equipment. Playing around with equipment production is just fun.

In PW and WIR it's all based on quite realistic numbers. And it's still managable, entertaining and it doesen't take forever to be played out.

And there seems to be tendency in wargame development, at least for WW2, to make either grand strategy games with relatively few details (like SC or WaW) or to stay tactical/operationally (like CM, COTA, TOAW, or, arguably WITP)

This I can't understand. Because both WIR and PW must have been financially successful. They seem to be real classics, even now with not all dormant forums here at Matrix.

Regards

Even in WIR each turn was made of impulses, so you can plan some in turn reaction. Probably the same goes with new WIE, just with more "impulses" per turn.

Although I got used to one day turns in WITP, it seems that longer control periods are more realistic for the front commander - you need to plan better, but game flow is faster and less forgiving..

WiR and WiF are 2 different games, your topic is about WiF but the topic talked about here is about the WiR remake

ORIGINAL: kingtiger_501

Even in WIR each turn was made of impulses, so you can plan some in turn reaction. Probably the same goes with new WIE, just with more "impulses" per turn.

Although I got used to one day turns in WITP, it seems that longer control periods are more realistic for the front commander - you need to plan better, but game flow is faster and less forgiving..

WiR and WiF are 2 different games, your topic is about WiF but the topic talked about here is about the WiR remake

No, my topic is not about WIF.. [;)]

ORIGINAL: wosung

I never was interested in World at War or Strategic Command. Whereas WitP (one day turns, the need to manage every ship and sub unit and an overburdened AI which, since the days of PW, tends to get its Kido Butai always sunk north of New Guinea in the Grand Campaign) is too detailed for me, the former ones just aren't detailed enough.

Like I wrote before: WIR and PW just got the right amount of detail for me. I love the fact that units are made up of number of inf squads, Arty, AT, that the tank bns of a Div/corps can have different equipment. Playing around with equipment production is just fun.

In PW and WIR it's all based on quite realistic numbers. And it's still managable, entertaining and it doesen't take forever to be played out.

And there seems to be tendency in wargame development, at least for WW2, to make either grand strategy games with relatively few details (like SC or WaW) or to stay tactical/operationally (like CM, COTA, TOAW, or, arguably WITP)

This I can't understand. Because both WIR and PW must have been financially successful. They seem to be real classics, even now with not all dormant forums here at Matrix.

Regards

Wholeheartedly agreed.

Speaking of war in the east, there was a game many many moons ago that ran a pseudo-realtime campaign..Dont remember the game but it seemed interesting....Only got to early beta or even late alpha before it died.. Heard it was way too ambitious for those days...It needs to be done now as computers have advanced way past a good ole 486 with 8 ram which I think was someones test machine.

You're talking about 'Road to Moscow' ?

Looks like COTA to me....

http://pc.ign.com/objects/011/011163.html

I was sure interested in this when it was circulating. I wonder if these specs could have been the problem with the development;

Minimum Requirements

* Win 95/98
P120Mhz
32 MB RAM
4x CD-ROM


Seems a huge task considering the hardware at the time. BTW, what sweet looking maps.

mo reb

No idea, but there were almost similiar requirements for BoB/BtR (P133, 32 MB RAM) and those game had to manage a truckload of units as well.

Having that said, I still remember how sluggish they ran on my P2 400.

Yeah, RtoM was it..it looked wonderful..COTA is like a mini RtoM..wish it could be done now.....

I really think this would be a winner if it could be accomplished.

Just to see how commanders, like WBTS, have a major role in this game it is an advance to any other computer games about East Front... [8D]

I could easily finish a full campaign in WIR against AI in 2-3 days, if I played a lot.  I'd like to see something along the lines of playing a campaignagainst the AI that takes 2-3 weeks, if played a lot.  WITP, if you play a lot, still seems like it could easily take months, if you're doing it right.

And I agree about Mr. Grigsby.  I bought Pacwar and WiR when they came out and I played them a lot.  I even bought Pacwar twice - the first time when it came out and the 2nd time when it was in just one of those CD cases as a greatest hits cheap game that was several years old by that time.  Then I got the free version. [:D] 

Hi all!

After years of just passive reading it is time now to be a bit more active

As I am a bit older, I play "War in Russia" or "Second Front" now for quite a time (since release in the 90's). And I am looking forward to "War in the East". I read the information about the details in the upcoming game and have some Questions. That might be a bit into detail but because of personal reasons I am interested in it.
1. I read that only southern Finland will be included. I personally would like to have the Norwegian/Finish Front included, mainly because some of my Family had the "pleasure" to spent some time there (during the war). Will it be possible to cut the supply from Murmansk? Not like in WiR by conquering Leningrad and advancing further. I mean with airplanes. Like Strategic Bombing Missions? Therefore i would like to see it included to give the 3rd German Mountain Div the change to make the last 50 km's

2. Same with the south. Will it be possible to cut allied supply from Persia, if this is included.

3. How does the economical part of the game work - if included? Is it the same as in WiR? (like cities with factories for planes and tanks? and if so can i change to allied models and then back. example in WiR: to italian airplanes. So far I can change production to them but not back anymore) and do I have access to factories of the german allies?


And a general: Thank you very much for your games! I had a lot of fun over the years!

Knilli

1. I read that only southern Finland will be included. I personally would like to have the Norwegian/Finish Front included, mainly because some of my Family had the "pleasure" to spent some time there (during the war). Will it be possible to cut the supply from Murmansk? Not like in WiR by conquering Leningrad and advancing further. I mean with airplanes. Like Strategic Bombing Missions? Therefore i would like to see it included to give the 3rd German Mountain Div the change to make the last 50 km's

I do not believe that Murmansk can be cut from supply by just using airpower.

2. Same with the south. Will it be possible to cut allied supply from Persia, if this is included.

I dont think this will be included

3. How does the economical part of the game work - if included? Is it the same as in WiR? (like cities with factories for planes and tanks? and if so can i change to allied models and then back. example in WiR: to italian airplanes. So far I can change production to them but not back anymore) and do I have access to factories of the german allies?

German allies have factories but as this game is in very early alpha the economical part of the game has not been decided on.

thx for your answers!

still...i would love to see the upper part of finnland included. as i said....the last 50 km

@persia...bummer

@economy: thx! something to look forward to hear in the future.

The following table for Soviet arms production is extracted from "Thunder in the East" by Evan Mawdsley (2005). Mawdsley was able to gain access Soviet war archives recently made public

.............................Entered Service......Entered Service
...........................6/22/41-12/31/41..........1942

AT................................2500....................20500
AA................................3400....................6800
Artillery.................... ...10100..................30100
Katyushas.....................1000....................3300
Heavy Tanks.................1000....................2600
Medium Tanks...............2200....................13400
Light Tanks...................2400....................11900
Fighters........................6000....................10700
Attack Aircraft ..............1400....................7200
Bombers.......................2500....................4100

These numbers include Soviet production and lend-lease. They appear to be for the most part higher than the War in Russia Soviet production numbers. For example, assuming that "medium tanks" are primarily T-34, the number entering service in 1942 averages 515/per week. This is much higher than the game provides.
Will War in the East reflect higher Soviet armaments production than War in Russia?

It would be great if Matrix could start up a forum for the new Grigsby East Front game. A product page with a few screenshots would be even better.

I am hungry for ANY news on this title. I have such high expectations. I just hope that one can designate targets for EVERY combat and not like WITP where taskforces cannot be directed. I want total control.

mo reb

ORIGINAL: Yank

It would be great if Matrix could start up a forum for the new Grigsby East Front game. A product page with a few screenshots would be even better.

When it is much closer to being finished I am sure they will create one.