Page 1 of 2
Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:59 pm
by henri51
I admit that it is a good game, but what I don't like about it is that it could be called "Air war on the Western Front". I know that the air war played an important role in WW2, especially on the Western Front, but this game seems to support Bomber Harris' view that the war could be won by air forces alone. Yes, I know that combined arms is the name of the game, but still...
War in the East was clearly designed to be played on the Soviet side, and this game has its biases too. Some players prefer playing the Germans (me too) and some players prefer ground strategy and tactics (me too). That is not necessarily a criticism of the game, but I guess it is just not my cup of tea.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:02 pm
by Helpless
but this game seems to support Bomber Harris' view that the war could be won by air forces alone.
No.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:02 pm
by zakblood
i only play the ground war as the AI is more than good enough to do the air tbh in all my tests
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:10 pm
by morganbj
What helpless said.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:30 pm
by Seminole
I admit that it is a good game, but what I don't like about it is that it could be called "Air war on the Western Front". I know that the air war played an important role in WW2, especially on the Western Front, but this game seems to support Bomber Harris' view that the war could be won by air forces alone.
I'm not sure how you think that this game can be won by airpower alone.
Have you played it?
How would you propose winning with airpower alone?
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:31 pm
by Seminole
i only play the ground war as the AI is more than good enough to do the air tbh in all my tests
I would expect that AI controlled air against the AI would be fine, but I would expect to be at a disadvantage against a human opponent if he controlled his air power and I was relying on the AI to control mine.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:46 pm
by whoofe
ORIGINAL: henri51
I admit that it is a good game, but what I don't like about it is that it could be called "Air war on the Western Front". I know that the air war played an important role in WW2, especially on the Western Front, but this game seems to support Bomber Harris' view that the war could be won by air forces alone. Yes, I know that combined arms is the name of the game, but still...
War in the East was clearly designed to be played on the Soviet side, and this game has its biases too. Some players prefer playing the Germans (me too) and some players prefer ground strategy and tactics (me too). That is not necessarily a criticism of the game, but I guess it is just not my cup of tea.
cool thing now with new patch is; you can team up with someone and have them run the air war while you focus on the ground, if that's the part you prefer
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:34 pm
by Rosseau
I've played one sloppy game of World in Flames ('43-'45) against myself. Deep down, WitW is more complex (imo), as WiF tends to lead you by the nose. But the WitW AI opponent and easy-to-use editor are great learning tools.
I cannot envision playing PBEM, but yes, the team option is nice.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:07 pm
by jacktimes2
Up until now, all I've managed to do is lose the war with air power alone, but I'm still having a blast and slowly figuring it out.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:45 pm
by KWG
The air war is young and boisterous, but you still need the grunts.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:39 pm
by henri51
ORIGINAL: Helpless
but this game seems to support Bomber Harris' view that the war could be won by air forces alone.
No.
I don't believe that WW2 could be won by air power alone, and I haven't played this game enough to determine if it is possible in the game. My point is that I find that the game puts too much emphasis (I.e. micromanagement) on the air war for my taste, but that is just me.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:58 pm
by Rongor
It also overwhelmed me at first but the air war features never scared me away. In my opinion you could have fun with the game without touching air warfare at all. They implemented enough AI control to enable you to ignore all the air stuff. So it shouldn't really be an issue keeping you away from the game.
Personally I couldn't resist to start getting into it and while still being far from using air warfare efficiently I have decent fun by making my learning steps.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2015 6:27 pm
by carlkay58
The air war alone cannot win the game. In VPs or position - the air war will not do it. The Allies have to invade Italy in order to force its surrender. The Allies also have to invade France in order to put pressure on the Axis and gain enough VPs to win. A very historical set of criteria for the Allies. The Axis win by forcing the Allies to take too long or liberate too little of Western Europe before the Soviets capture Berlin.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 11:39 am
by barkhorn45
I wish DC1 and 2 had this "problem".
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 2:02 pm
by Commanderski
Even if you are not a big fan of the Western Front getting the game is worth it as it will make the transition to WITE 2.0 easier. The WITW system will be in WITE 2.0 so learning how to use the Air power, Supply depot system and everything else is worth it. Since there more than likely be no large scale amphibious assaults in WITE 2.0 you could just play the Axis side and you would get a feel of how things work.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:27 pm
by Rosseau
Without question, my biggest frustration with games is having to re-learn them all the time. If all I played was WitE/WitW, it would be easy.
But because this nasty Matrix company offers so many good titles, I am lost after a few months not playing even simpler games like Order of Battle, not to mention WitP AE, etc. However, Panzer Corps I will never forget how to play [;)]
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2015 8:41 pm
by Tejszd
The best games are deep but have a good UI to make things easy....
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 5:51 am
by goulash
ORIGINAL: rosseau
Without question, my biggest frustration with games is having to re-learn them all the time. If all I played was WitE/WitW, it would be easy.
But because this nasty Matrix company offers so many good titles, I am lost after a few months not playing even simpler games like Order of Battle, not to mention WitP AE, etc. However, Panzer Corps I will never forget how to play [;)]
Yup, all these game manuals I need to get my head round WIF, WITP AE, WITW, not yet tried WITE but have a lot to learn before jumping into that one. Command Air Naval etc is another big one to learn but I am waiting for a duo monitor set up before playing that and WIF properly.
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 11:47 am
by Numdydar
Yes I can attest that it should almost be a hardware requirement for World in Flames to have two (or more) monitors [:)]. What a difference they make.
If we went back to the days where war games were only published once or twice a year, we would not have this problem [:)] Of course we would then complain (and we did. You know who you are [;)]) about how so few were available. But we did know how to play those games [:)]
RE: Why I don't play it
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:01 pm
by Rongor
I still didn't find the time to learn how to play WITP seriously. Since there are games like WITE and now WITW (and some other stuff) to study, I am afraid WITP will feel too old and ancient when I finally can direct attention towards it (in some years...)