Matrix Games Forums

To whom it may concern:

Will this upcomming game resemble the original World in Flames by the Austrailian Design Group? Or will it look more like Hearts of Iron maps.[&o]

Take a look at the AAR's - it gives you some great shots of the maps.

ORIGINAL: Prete

To whom it may concern:

Will this upcomming game resemble the original World in Flames by the Austrailian Design Group? Or will it look more like Hearts of Iron maps.[&o]

No.

[:D]

GGWaW features regions of differing shapes and sizes, so superficially it might remind you of Axis and Allies or HOI. But my impression from the AARs is that there's a lot more depth here than in A&A; you have research, economics, detailed combat, and much more of a grognard "feel."

Matrix is developing War in Flames for the computer; see the separate forum on that game on these boards. ETA is probably a couple of years, though. In the meantime, if you want detailed hex-based wargaming on a large scale, it's hard to do better than War in the Pacific (also on these boards).

Matrix is developing War in Flames for the computer

World in Flames

GGWaW features regions of differing shapes and sizes, so superficially it might remind you of Axis and Allies or HOI. But my impression from the AARs is that there's a lot more depth here than in A&A; you have research, economics, detailed combat, and much more of a grognard "feel."

just ask the new batch of testers how much depth the game has. even with the detailed AAR's in this forum they found they still had lots to learn [:D]

In all seriousness, the European map doesn't remind me of A&A so much as it does Europe Engulfed. Which really just goes to show that one map of Europe or the World broken into territories is going to look a lot like other maps.

This map design offers incredible playability and deep strategy options.

Erp, World in Flames, not War in Flames. I make that mistake all the time.

Yes, GGWaW looks fabulous to me. It's the kind of wargame I actually will play PBEM.

ORIGINAL: Becket

No.

[:D]

Good answer, and quite correct.

Closest analogy - map wise - would be Axis and Allies. But as has been discussed, it is significantly different from A&A in most ways, similarities are largely superficial.

ORIGINAL: Becket

In all seriousness, the European map doesn't remind me of A&A so much as it does Europe Engulfed. Which really just goes to show that one map of Europe or the World broken into territories is going to look a lot like other maps.

This map design offers incredible playability and deep strategy options.

I say A&A because E.E. has quite a few more regions.
As the Germans in E.E., I got kicked out of most of them. [:D]
(Berlin fell by the end of '43)

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

ORIGINAL: Becket

In all seriousness, the European map doesn't remind me of A&A so much as it does Europe Engulfed. Which really just goes to show that one map of Europe or the World broken into territories is going to look a lot like other maps.

This map design offers incredible playability and deep strategy options.

I say A&A because E.E. has quite a few more regions.
As the Germans in E.E., I got kicked out of most of them. [:D]
(Berlin fell by the end of '43)

W@W falls closer to EE than A&A in the number of regions in the USSR....that's the parallel I'm thinking of. Plus, like EE, W@W gives special significance to Sevastapol, including a strait crossing (represented by the "ferry" rule in W@W).

Good point with the USSR regions.

Actually, that is odd. Why so many USSR regions, but so few Europran Regions? I think Europe could probably use with a little sub dividing as well.


And yes, A&A completely ignored a lot of straights and forts, and such.

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

Good point with the USSR regions.

Actually, that is odd. Why so many USSR regions, but so few Europran Regions? I think Europe could probably use with a little sub dividing as well.


And yes, A&A completely ignored a lot of straights and forts, and such.

I agree about the European Regions but I believe the map divisions are set....I had requested that Western France be split in two, Western France and Brittany, but was informed that the last group of SU region splits were to be the last.....

Well, poo.
[:(]


Oh well, not a deal breaker, just would have been nice.

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

Good point with the USSR regions.

Actually, that is odd. Why so many USSR regions, but so few Europran Regions? I think Europe could probably use with a little sub dividing as well.


And yes, A&A completely ignored a lot of straights and forts, and such.

I agree about the European Regions but I believe the map divisions are set....I had requested that Western France be split in two, Western France and Brittany, but was informed that the last group of SU region splits were to be the last.....

There are many factors that influence the decisions on how to split the regions. In the particular case of France, I remember one of the reason for not dividing it was the division would mean more regions for the Germans to garrison which also means more places for the Allies to invade. The opinion of the designers was that this would create a play balance issue.

Just so you understand, all details in the game are well thought out and undergo much internal discussion. There is always a logical reason for things being the way they are.

ORIGINAL: color

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

ORIGINAL: neuromancer

Good point with the USSR regions.

Actually, that is odd. Why so many USSR regions, but so few Europran Regions? I think Europe could probably use with a little sub dividing as well.


And yes, A&A completely ignored a lot of straights and forts, and such.

I agree about the European Regions but I believe the map divisions are set....I had requested that Western France be split in two, Western France and Brittany, but was informed that the last group of SU region splits were to be the last.....

There are many factors that influence the decisions on how to split the regions. In the particular case of France, I remember one of the reason for not dividing it was the division would mean more regions for the Germans to garrison which also means more places for the Allies to invade. The opinion of the designers was that this would create a play balance issue.

Just so you understand, all details in the game are well thought out and undergo much internal discussion. There is always a logical reason for things being the way they are.

Ironically, when I suggested it, I mentioned that it would create an extra invasion zone which I thought was a good thing.....saner heads prevailed I see....[:)]