Matrix Games Forums

I have both and just looking at the map, the two games look very similar, no surprise really as it geography. But wondering what is the difference in European play between the two.

Short answer: scale. (I expounded a bit more on that in your duplicate thread in the WAW forum.)

Of course scale is the big difference, but under the hood WiE has the advantage of longer and deeper development. WaW has some irritating "features" [underdeveloped scripts] that more development and refinement can sort out. As much as I like WiE, my clear preference is for WaW. It lacks the "needless" minutiae of the smaller scale, and I feel that it has better balance and historical soundness.

On the other hand, its AI - especially the Allies - is as dumb as a box of rocks; e.g., when playing the Japanese I was waiting for the Allied counter-attack across the Pacific. Apart from a one-time scripted invasion of Java from the south, no other land invasions materialized. The USN "obediently" lines up on parade off the coast of Japan where you can pick it off piecemeal at your leisure. When the game ended, I was horrified to discover that New Guinea was covered in a solid carpet of Allied land units that were going nowhere. That was quite the disappointment, but with enough effort and time the scripts can be developed and refined to make it a great game. WaW has the greater potential. Play it as the Allies if you itch to play it.

The latest build of World at War should see a bit of an improvement to the Pacific AI from the original release.