Matrix Games Forums

I've been a long time fan of WW2 era hex-based games going back to the old SSI games running on my AppleIIe.

I just wanted to ask a few questions first that I haven't been able to answer from the game info pages.

I've played some of the other current hex-based WW2 games, a la Strategic Command etc, but I'm looking for something a little more "epic". I guess I'm looking for a game that encompasses the length and bredth of the European campaign, one that has enough substance that it takes a more than a few simple hours to complete.

So, I guess my questions to those playing the game are:

* Do you feel like this game has sufficient scope to it? (width etc of map, play time etc)

* Are naval tactics well done? Like most gamers of my type I think, I'm concentrating more on the land campaigns but naval strategy can't be completely ignored to be sure.

* Do you feel like the game plays realistically at a "in principle" level? For example, if playing Germany looking to invade England, do you feel like you need to properly prepare for it? (eg/ achieving air superiority by knocking out the RAF, assembling shipping etc etc)

* Is the technology system interesting yet relatively basic enough that it is an important aspect of the game without going down into a Hearts of Iron style domination?

* How would you compare this to other available hex-based WW2 games on the market?

Jump down to the AAR section and take a look at the ongoing "Road to where".  It sure feels "epic" when you are in it!  I actually think it scores well in every category you mention, but then I am a huge fan of this game, and it, and Mr. Gardner, are giving me a fine time!  I have loved this game since I got it.
 
The AARs should give you a real feel for the game.
 
Chuck

I've started going through the AAR's - it was actually one of them, a PBEM one, that got me interested enough to create the forum account and consider purchasing this. I'll go through the others as well.

* Are naval tactics well done? Like most gamers of my type I think, I'm concentrating more on the land campaigns but naval strategy can't be completely ignored to be sure.

No, they are awful. Very abstract and feel like a totally different game. You have nearly no control about what is happening...you may encounter another fleet or maybe not. If you suceed a dull automated combat sequence starts.

I love the rest of the game but naval combat system is the worst i´ve ever seen in a ww2 game.

* Do you feel like the game plays realistically at a "in principle" level? For example, if playing Germany looking to invade England, do you feel like you need to properly prepare for it? (eg/ achieving air superiority by knocking out the RAF, assembling shipping etc etc)

Yes, you need amphibious points to move units to invade England and they are very costly. Can´t tell about the RAF since it´s late 1940 and no allied air units are present after the fall of france. Maybe they are hidden in england waiting for germany to attack.

Better take Malta out if you want Axis to do something in North Afrika or you´ll run out os supplies quickly (i love that event!)

* Is the technology system interesting yet relatively basic enough that it is an important aspect of the game without going down into a Hearts of Iron style domination?

Yes, it´s pretty basic and, at least in land combat, it makes a great difference (ah, those nasty soviet heavy tank divisions!)

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

* Do you feel like this game has sufficient scope to it? (width etc of map, play time etc)

Scope is very good, but there are some ahistorical limitations due to the poor naval and air/naval system. For instance, a Norway campaign is possible only through Sweden, not by sea.

* Are naval tactics well done? Like most gamers of my type I think, I'm concentrating more on the land campaigns but naval strategy can't be completely ignored to be sure.

Read some of the threads here on the naval system, and especially the lack of an air/naval component in the game. In my opinion, it's better than the naval system in SC2, but very poor.

* Do you feel like the game plays realistically at a "in principle" level? For example, if playing Germany looking to invade England, do you feel like you need to properly prepare for it? (eg/ achieving air superiority by knocking out the RAF, assembling shipping etc etc)

No. The air combat system is flawed in two ways: 1) losses and hits are way too high, thus an air division can be wiped out in one turn. An air army can take 50% losses in one turn. Reinforcement is so costly that the player tends to hide his air forces rather than using them. 2) Air forces are generally represented by huge air army units. Thus even when the player dares to use them, their effectiveness is very limited in scope. All is not lost however, because both of these flaws can rather easily be corrected by a simple mod - see some threads in the forum on that.

* Is the technology system interesting yet relatively basic enough that it is an important aspect of the game without going down into a Hearts of Iron style domination?

The technology system is elegant - simple, yet well integrated into combat effectiveness of each type of unit.

* How would you compare this to other available hex-based WW2 games on the market?

It has hexes!! SC2 always bummed me out with it's insidious squares. Taken as a land game, it's quite fun, well worth the money if you can get into a good PBEM, or played solo with a couple of simple mods.

It's important, if you do get the game, to try to get over your initial disappointment with the limitations in the game, and then delve into the aspects that are really well done.

[/quote]