THE ultimate WW2 grand strategy game

[cpdeyoung]

Some of you may be interested in a mod built upon Advanced Tactics Gold.

The mod is built by two dedicated gamer-modders and is called GD1938. The "GD" stands for Global Domination, and it is a Strategic-Operational level game starting in January 1938. The map covers all theaters of WW2 and land, naval and the air war are all handled well. You must have ATG to play the mod, but there is no cost beyond this and ATG is pretty inexpensive and often discounted. The base game is a nice purchase, and GD1938 is a wonderful development of the base.

There are many AARs available on the ATG page which will give you a taste of the game.

The modders are working on a brand new version which will feature a larger map, and an extensively researched unit pool.

This is a game worth a look.

Chuck

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I would start with the greatest game ever made – "Pocket pool" with myself. It's a full-time obsession. Failing that, War in the Pacific, Admiral's Edition is the cat's meow.

Seriously, OP, any list of strategic wargames without the aforementioned commercial game is seriously flawed. This is absolutely the shizzle-nizzle as far as I'm concerned. As for Warspite1's other unfortunate tendencies...well, the less said the better.

warspite1

+1

Well, I partially agree, warspite1.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

they are highly appropriate for the island war in the Pacific.

Eh? With a handful of exceptions, most of the island fighting in the Pacific involved significantly smaller than division-sized elements. RCTs or battalion-sized elements were much more commonly employed in this capacity in the Pacific.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Neilster

they are highly appropriate for the island war in the Pacific.

Eh? With a handful of exceptions, most of the island fighting in the Pacific involved significantly smaller than division-sized elements. RCTs or battalion-sized elements were much more commonly employed in this capacity in the Pacific.

warspite1

Well I'd have to disagree with that.

a) Firstly I actually don't think that's true - but of course depends how you define this. If you mean individual battles within a campaign then maybe, but not campaigns as a whole.

b) Secondly, and gearing the answer to the OP's point in post 36, even where it is, one needs to factor in the timescale of the game - two month turns. So where a battle may have been fought with less than division sized units, at one or more points during the battle, the overall commitment may have been division/corps size.

So as an example, the opening shots of Guadalcanal was undertaken by a reinforced US division. But over the course of the 6 month campaign many more elements were brought in. So invading with a US Corps on the first impulse is not necessarily a problem given that that turn ends two months later.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy




Word. Dat warspite1, he fur real dough - he know where it at.

warspite1

+1

Respec dude

warspite1

Thanks homey.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I'd have to disagree with that.

Firstly I actually don't think that's true - but of course depends how you define this. If you mean individual battles within a campaign then maybe

I'm referring to island invasions within the War in the Pacific. A relative minority comprised of units division sized or larger. Far more were RCT or battalion-sized endeavors. Sometimes company sized. Now if you want to extrapolate the granularity of the Pacific war into a global divisional or corps-sized strategic platform, you'll probably have to do without many of these smaller (but more numerous) affairs. But that is your choice for opting for the 'larger picture' at the expense of smaller scale actions.

Look at the central Philippines:

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... 1/ch11.htm

Nice writeup with purty maps and unit designations.

Even Guadalcanal as an example...does that include Tulagi (smaller than Division sized elements siezed this island historically)? Guvutu-Tanambogo? Which units are 'included in the operation' depends on the granularity and detail sought.

How about Kwajalein? The North wasn't just about Roi-Namur.

[rico21]

ADVANCED TACTICS GOLD [&o]

The game that allows to create Kampfgruppe![:)]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I'd have to disagree with that.

Firstly I actually don't think that's true - but of course depends how you define this. If you mean individual battles within a campaign then maybe

I'm referring to island invasions within the War in the Pacific. A relative minority comprised of units division sized or larger. Far more were RCT or battalion-sized endeavors. Sometimes company sized. Now if you want to extrapolate the granularity of the Pacific war into a global divisional or corps-sized strategic platform, you'll probably have to do without many of these smaller (but more numerous) affairs. But that is your choice for opting for the 'larger picture' at the expense of smaller scale actions.

warspite1

Yes one may see fewer island hops. It is some time ago now but I don't recall wasting units in the Gilberts or on Peleliu for example. But as you say, that is what you potentially lose the higher the scale. Bringing the game down to division (and if you do that you could add brigade, RCT, Kampfgruppe as chrome in the same way that divisions are current chrome for corps/army) maybe allows that optional.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I'd have to disagree with that.

Firstly I actually don't think that's true - but of course depends how you define this. If you mean individual battles within a campaign then maybe

I'm referring to island invasions within the War in the Pacific. A relative minority comprised of units division sized or larger. Far more were RCT or battalion-sized endeavors. Sometimes company sized. Now if you want to extrapolate the granularity of the Pacific war into a global divisional or corps-sized strategic platform, you'll probably have to do without many of these smaller (but more numerous) affairs. But that is your choice for opting for the 'larger picture' at the expense of smaller scale actions.

warspite1

I'm thinking NEI, Philippines twice, Saipan, Tinian, Guam (second time around), Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal and for the smaller islands, the island grouping.

[rico21]

The kampfgruppe (Combat Command), the tip of the sword
The division, the blade
The army, the handle
Army Group, Arm
GHQ, the brain
Island, chrome for Robinson Crusoe

[warspite1]

And ADG need to rectify their main faux pas with WIF - where's the Abdiel-class?

Edit: It looks like they are included in the collectors edition [:)]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Well I'd have to disagree with that.

Firstly I actually don't think that's true - but of course depends how you define this. If you mean individual battles within a campaign then maybe

I'm referring to island invasions within the War in the Pacific. A relative minority comprised of units division sized or larger. Far more were RCT or battalion-sized endeavors. Sometimes company sized. Now if you want to extrapolate the granularity of the Pacific war into a global divisional or corps-sized strategic platform, you'll probably have to do without many of these smaller (but more numerous) affairs. But that is your choice for opting for the 'larger picture' at the expense of smaller scale actions.

warspite1

I'm thinking NEI, Philippines twice, Saipan, Tinian, Guam (second time around), Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal and for the smaller islands, the island grouping.

This just in: there's a lot of islands in that list of yours. "The Philippines" consisted of dozens upon dozens of moderate-sized invasions. Sure, you can extrapolate it from a 30,000 foot (sorry, 10,000 meter) elevation to be an invasion of just Luzon or just Leyte or just Mindanao, but you lose a great deal of information in so doing. Same with the DEI and the Guadalcanal-area.

Same with the Gilberts and Marshalls. If you are satisfied with 'island group' invasions approximating the entirety of the Gilberts and Marshalls, then to each their own. I need much more detail than the global viewpoint / perspective can achieve.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy



I'm referring to island invasions within the War in the Pacific. A relative minority comprised of units division sized or larger. Far more were RCT or battalion-sized endeavors. Sometimes company sized. Now if you want to extrapolate the granularity of the Pacific war into a global divisional or corps-sized strategic platform, you'll probably have to do without many of these smaller (but more numerous) affairs. But that is your choice for opting for the 'larger picture' at the expense of smaller scale actions.

warspite1

I'm thinking NEI, Philippines twice, Saipan, Tinian, Guam (second time around), Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal and for the smaller islands, the island grouping.

This just in: there's a lot of islands in that list of yours. "The Philippines" consisted of dozens upon dozens of moderate-sized invasions. Sure, you can extrapolate it from a 30,000 foot (sorry, 10,000 meter) elevation to be an invasion of just Luzon or just Leyte or just Mindanao, but you lose a great deal of information in so doing. Same with the DEI and the Guadalcanal-area.

Same with the Gilberts and Marshalls. If you are satisfied with 'island group' invasions approximating the entirety of the Gilberts and Marshalls, then to each their own. I need much more detail than the global viewpoint / perspective can achieve.

warspite1

Sorry I didn't realise at any point that this had become 'what is best' because as you say, each to their own. I was simply answering your response to Neilster about MWIF and whether divisions can be seen as appropriate for island war in the Pacific.

Based on my understanding of the Pacific War I believe it is appropriate - but I make no comment on what is the best scale because that depends on what one wants from a strategic war game.

If one standard scale is important in a whole war game (and it is for me) then what appears on the Eastern Front also has to appear in the Pacific. I don't fancy tossing around in the Pacific with only Corps sized counters - but equally I don't care to play a strategic level war game and use brigades and battalions in the East....

[rico21]

Japan surrendered because of the Manhattan project.
The loss of the islands had not convinced them.
The creation of additional aircraft carriers makes it possible to do without air bases on the islands.
Obviously, if you have a game that does not make it, it's annoying.[:D]

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: warspite1
If one standard scale is important in a whole war game (and it is for me) then what appears on the Eastern Front also has to appear in the Pacific. I don't fancy tossing around in the Pacific with only Corps sized counters - but equally I don't care to play a strategic level war game and use brigades and battalions in the East....

That...actually...makes sense...[&:]

[ncc1701e]

All right, thus if we want consistency in term of scale all over the map, do I summarize correctly that division level is then the best compromise?

I wonder if such game could implement the same thing than in TOAW. I mean there is the ability to divide or recombine one unit into 2 or 3 sub units. Depending on its OOB, a corps could be splitted at player request into two or three divisions. Same thing for the division. Would that help for rico21's kampfgruppe?

Now, what would be the scale for the world map? I have no idea of the frontage that a WW2 division was supposed to defend or to attack. I am reading some contradictory information about this. Anyone knows?

Thanks already for your above replies

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

All right, thus if we want consistency in term of scale all over the map, do I summarize correctly that division level is then the best compromise?

I wonder if such game could implement the same thing than in TOAW. I mean there is the ability to divide or recombine one unit into 2 or 3 sub units. Depending on its OOB, a corps could be splitted at player request into two or three divisions. Same thing for the division. Would that help for rico21's kampfgruppe?

Now, what would be the scale for the world map? I have no idea of the frontage that a WW2 division was supposed to defend or to attack. I am reading some contradictory information about this. Anyone knows?

Thanks already for your above replies

In MWiF, corps can be broken down into divisions but no further. WW2 entirely modelled at divisional scale means a lot of units. Matrix World in Flames is an almost exact port of the paper and dice wargame, and the designers of said game opted for a basically corps/army level of granularity. Divisional scale is more manageable in a computer game but probably not worth all the extra effort.

For example, Operation Barbarossa alone involved an invasion with 160+ Axis divisions. The Red Army had more. MWiF makes the Eastern Front and, say, the oft neglected but huge war in China, manageable in a reasonable time frame. Also, the scale of the land action is in balance with MWiF's (excellent) naval and air models.

Only the Soviets and Chinese are mostly modelled at the army level. Everybody else is at the corps level. Even so, the global map in MWiF has 70,200 hexes. It's pictured below.

People often forget how vast the Pacific Theatre is is comparison to the European Theatre, so if you want a unified global scale, the hexes can't be too small without having a bajillion of them, especially in the Pacific. Also, the rules of MWiF provide a kind of artificial increase in detail. It's hard to explain but, especially in Europe, what can look like a chunky map ends up being more subtle during play. It's a tried and tested design.

Cheers, Neilster

[balto]

HOI 4 is mega great and it keeps getting better thanks to the awesome gaming powerhouse called Paradox (aka, heaven). The UI takes a lot of time to understand because most of it's finer points are vague. Takes about 200 hours to get good at the UI, which is a lot of time, but with a Paradox product, you know the investment in time will pay off. With mods and the DLC, it is an incredible game. If you love HOI 2 and 3, you will super love HOI 4. I am up to over 500 hours and I do not plan on stopping. The comment about not using the PAUSE feature, I do not understand that.., you PAUSE when you need it, and you speed up when you do not. PS - get all the DLC and do not worry about the CONVERSION feature, presently it is useless despite what a lot of the forum people claim.

PS - The mention of Advanced Tactics, I am sure that is another way to go. I love that game, but never played the World War mod..,

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: ncc1701e

All right, thus if we want consistency in term of scale all over the map, do I summarize correctly that division level is then the best compromise?

I wonder if such game could implement the same thing than in TOAW. I mean there is the ability to divide or recombine one unit into 2 or 3 sub units. Depending on its OOB, a corps could be splitted at player request into two or three divisions. Same thing for the division. Would that help for rico21's kampfgruppe?

Now, what would be the scale for the world map? I have no idea of the frontage that a WW2 division was supposed to defend or to attack. I am reading some contradictory information about this. Anyone knows?

Thanks already for your above replies

warspite1

If I remember correctly the (seemingly aborted?) divisional level game of World In Flames was going to use the same maps as the standard game.

[rico21]

A 3d map with several levels of zoom, e.g the map:
1-by country with its armed groups
2-by region with its armies
3-by city with its divisions
4-etc