Difference in Scale Between the Two Games

[canuckgamer]

Since World at War covers both the European and Pacific theaters and considering the huge difference in distances in the Pacific vs. Europe I assume that the scale for the Pacific theater is different than for Europe.
Secondly, is the scale for Europe in World at War the same as it is for War in Europe?
Thank you.

[Simulacra53]

Roughly 1/2 the resolution.
So 7-8 hexes are now 3 hexes across.

[Ason]

This is very disappointing...Also disappointing to have to pay the full game price for these new scenarios:/ I will probably buy them sooner or later, but probably only to support Hubert and Bill for their amazing and hard work.

[Markiss]

The difference in scale is disappointing, but not unexpected. I wonder if it is possible to create a custom map that preserves the original scale, I would buy it. The Atlantic is so small now, it is not really possible to have the cat and mouse games between the subs and destroyers as in War in Europe. Ships can cross the entire Atlantic now in one turn with naval cruise, it's just not the same. The vast expanse of the Pacific I hoped for is not so vast, and it really takes something from the game.
Maybe they thought the game would get too time consuming, but squeezing the world map into the same number of hexes dumb's the game down quite a bit. The loss of detail and room to maneuver is tragic.
If I recall, the last time they created a world map for SC the reasoning for keeping the number of hexes the same was not everyone would have a powerful enough computer to run it, but in this day and age that couldn't be the problem.
Oh well, maybe next time.

[howardg]

I concur regarding the comments on the scale being disappointing[&:]. I was hoping/expecting the same scale as War in Europe. And yes, I'd also pay for a map with the original scale.

[Schokolokos]

For me the scale is just right. On larger scale you would have to zoom in and out nonstop with no good overview. It is already hard to find every small island on the Pacific right now.

[Markiss]

I'm glad you are happy with it, buddy. But it could be so much more. It could be absolutely epic.
They could simply add another level of zoom to deal with the problem you describe.
I hope some one takes up the challenge.

[Ancient One]

I'm ok with the new map scale, but there's the same number of units in Europe, so it's unreasonably crowded.

[Markiss]

Crowding is the problem I am running into in China. It should be a huge, vast theatre, but instead you find all of the units are shoulder to shoulder with no room to maneuver. That's a scale problem. The distances should be daunting, and supply should be the big problem, as it was in real life. Instead, the units are packed in like sardines, leaving no option other than frontal assault. And the Chinese have so many units, I expect that a good player will overwhelm the Japanese pretty quickly. I hope it does not work out that way.
And why do the Japanese make 50% more mpp's than the Germans at the start of the game? Really? The Dutch East Indies are worth 75 points a turn? And the Japanese don't even own them. Wasn't the US Japan's main source of oil? Wasn't the cutting off of those supplies the main reason given for Japan starting the war?
The Japanese were leadership and experience rich and resource poor, but that does not seem to be reflected. I repeat, they out produce Germany? I am sure it was done for game balance purposes, but it sure seems strange. Couldn't they have just given the Chinese a little less so that Japan didn't need so much?
I will play on, hopefully some of these issues will resolve themselves.

[Meteor2]

Markiss, you have pointed the issues out well.
The Reduktion of the map size was expected, but it is a step back, when the "feeling" is not correct.
And a crowded China front seems to be wrong, indeed.
And of course, Germany should not be out-produced by Japan.
The real reasons, backgrounds pros and cons of the pacific war for Japan should be present in a reasonable way.

I bought the game to support the wondervoll Development work from Fury, but the "old" map size should have been the basis for a more historical presentation.

[canuckgamer]

It's too bad they didn't use the same scale as War in Europe as it would have conveyed the vastness of the Pacific theater and the problems it presented including finding enemy naval forces and supply. That's why the Americans strategy of island hopping was necessary not only to establish airbases but to create a supply chain and cutoff major Japanese bases like Truk. Although I like the Strategic Command series and played the original releases years ago I'll pass on this one.

[Markiss]

I don't mean to condemn the game, it just plays a little different from War in Europe. I am sure it has it's own unique charm, I am just making some observations from the first few turns I have played.
Maybe I should not have expected it to play the same, it is more than just a different scenario on the same map. The change in scale changes game play a bit, ultimately whether for better or worse I have not yet determined.
Buy it and see for yourself. I did. It's only money.

[Dorky8]

I'm a big fan of the series but the scale seems off. Hopefully I'm just accustomed to WiE and will adjust. I am skeptical.

[Titan]

I find the Scale a tad dissapointing , while the game is still enjoyable i wouldnt go on and say its better...In fact SC3 is the more intense and if i had to make a choice of one or the other i would stick to the Orginal. I do like the Global aspect but you do have this squeezed limited feel when playing this and its almost feels like its crying out to be something more than what it is. But yes same amount of Units but just squashed into smaller areas and stuff moves to far.

A good example of all this...After invading poland one needs to get units to the west quicksmart..Well it takes two turns to have your army on the western front ready to strike..Same when preparing for Barbarossa one had to manage moving the Axis east and not get to distracted in Yugoslavia and Greece....Well don't need to consider that distraction now you can have the best part of your army from the west ready to strike within 2-3 turns. Does that make the game better? I guess its what one is looking for. I do like the Pacific but i think much of the naval warfare would have a more historical cat and mouse feeling with a bigger area for fleets to move to....Unfortunatley map scale in my view makes this an just an OK game...Which aint bad to being a really good game like SC3

[Titan]

So far in my game it feels like this...Its 5 Hexes from Brussels to Paris,Unit scales havent changed...Germans are choking trying to attack France..Once belgium falls and Frances Border with Belgium gets Broken..Your at the gates of Paris..France doesnt seem to have to many options on where to defend....Germany might as well leave half its army in poland as they just add to Choke points trying to attack france there just aint enough space to deploy, and the Japanese seem to get stuck in a WW1 war with the Chinese as the Chinese can just about line the country with troops from one end to another and the Japs really cant manourvere anywhere. Brits in Basra move up to Bagdad within two turns Iraq doesnt get a chance to build its Garrison.....Hate to say it but this feels really weird Unit scale the same but smaller map scale.Playing this almost feels like this map needs to be 1/3rd or 50% bigger im afraid and then you will have a game you can write home about IMO

[Tanaka]

Disappointing...yeah if only the map scale were a little bigger this game could really be amazing [:(]

[Titan]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Disappointing...yeah if only the map scale were a little bigger this game could really be amazing [:(]

Absoultley it's got everything going for it..Everything is there and in place, Just the map is to squeezed!!!! Stops this from being a great game. Personally i would of prefered a pacific theater on a decent scale than global on this scale...

[jackharry]

I have bought every incarnation of Strategic Command through the years and have never been disappointed, they have all been excellent.
However I have been both surprised and disappointed with WAW. I had expected that the map size would be at least the same scale and size as the last "Global" game AOD, which was a great game by the way. To go backwards in terms of map scale and size seems a strange decision and ruins what could have been, given all the other enhancements since AOD, a truly great game.

[Asberdies]

I too find the map scale really disappointing. I hoped Word at War would have been an extension of Strategic command II War in Europe, but its not. A lot if not all, of the work done for the Europeen theatre has been lost. I cant understand the logic being, because for all the poeple who played Strategic command II War in Europe, the Euro front in Waw will be the same except with a such reduced scale, i think the feeling about it will be just ... Wow!!
I cant stop thinking they wanted to make a "cheap" game :/

[Titan]

Imagine two football teams suddenly having to play a full game with half a field with the goals at the end of one half...That's what this feels like to play...Great game but to many players in a small area all of a sudden, plus i can now kick the ball from goal to goal. I would of thought map Size would of been an absolute priority when doing an epic game that represents the globe....If you play HOI it can do it