First Impressions

[qgaliana]

Thought I'd share my first impressions after a week or so of playing, maybe get some additional comments.

When I checked the screenshots and some descriptions of the game, I wasn't entirely sure this was what I wanted, but in the end, I let the Gary Grigsby brand influence me (my experiences there had all been positive) and bought it anyways.

I was hoping for a lot more realism, particularly in naval/air operations & combat resolution. But realism seems to be addressed often in several threads and I don't want to rehash those. The production, research, and supply work pretty nicely as a mangeable abstraction for a broad range of players. Kudos for that.

The combat system is my biggest beef and, I think, the one potentially fatal flaw to all-around game play. The biggest problem there is the all-or-nothing effects of damaged or destroyed. This is an old board game crutch to eliminate bookkeeping, but a computer can easily keep track of more detailed damage levels, without burdening the player. The system really breaks down where you see a tech advantage gained in attack/evasion values. You can often arrange matchups where it's nearly impossible to take casualties. Attrition isn't an option because there just aren't enough units and turns at this scale to get a decent number of effective hits. Fall behind the tech curve, game over. Some countries (China factories, Russia no. of units) just may not realistically be able to stay in the tech race.

I'm sorry to say the overall effect has been dissappointing. When I was a kid, we marked up an old risk board with production centres to change the build rules and basically played risk with a WW2 scenario. This game plays about the same way.

As a game it could be good, I'm still deciding. As a wargame, for this time period, poor. I have a feeling it will translate better to pre-flight time periods (The air units are by far the poorest abstraction). The masses of armies mashing together to blast each other wouldn't seem so out of place in the 19th century. The civil war game I heard rumours of might be interesting. This might also have been a decent global WWI simulation with a finer scale (e.g. more areas to cover the balkans).

To sum up, not the global WWII game I've been waiting for. I can't even recommend it to any of my old wargamer buddies. Sorry if that bugs some of the fans, but it's just a personal opinion. I'm going to keep playing it, maybe something will hook me, but right now it looks like it will be transferred to my kid's computer. He seems to like it.

[Uncle_Joe]

I agree that is just a matter of opinion.

If you are looking for something with the detail level of Advanced 3rd Reich or World in Flames, this is not it. I dont think it was ever intended to be a super-detailed simulation of WW2.

However it is a very nice strategy game with a WW2 theme. You can generally get the feel of global operations in the 1940s. I believe that once the next patch is out, a lot of the 'feel' will be back into the Pacific and naval wars. The patch should also address a few other outstanding 'problems' with the unit data that allows players to exploit the research system a little too much.

I also agree that the air units are quite abstract. But again, they do give a feel for needing to build Fighters or Flak to counter them and the need to continually improve your aircraft as the war progresses. You still cant win the war with airpower alone.

Overall, for something that is this easy to play, I'm impressed with how 'correct' the war feels. Sure, there are little things here and there, but to even attempt to simulate the vast differences between the war in Europe and in the Pacific using the same simple mechanics is a daunting task. I feel that GGWaW pulls it off quite well.

Of course, if you dont like it, you dont like it. No problems there. I would, however, recommend waiting for the next patch before making a final decision. None of the game fundamentals are likely to change, but the overall tweaking might make it more to your liking.

If not, definately pass on it on down to the kids. Its never too early to get more people hooked on such games! [;)]

[Grotius]

Thanks for your post. Have you tried the game on Advanced Supply? With that option on, it truly becomes a wargame -- one very far removed from Risk. Supply becomes an all-consuming concern for every power in the game. The Western Allies have to maintain transports to move supply around, to keep their fleets fueled up, and to keep Britain alive. (The Germans counter this with U-Boats, which are very important with "Advanced Supply" on but almost pointless with "Normal Supply" on.) Russia needs supply, via lend-lease and Murmanks convoys, to stay afloat. Germany never has enough supply. Japan has this problem, plus its heavily dependent on its transport network to get the supply where it needs to go. None of these considerations are remotely applicable in Risk, which is a completely different type of game.

And I'm surprised you don't enjoy the naval game. I think that the naval/air implementation is better than in any grand-strategy computer wargame ever made -- Strategic Command, Third Reich PC, High Command, Clas of Steel, HOI2, you name it. Here, navies aren't just abstracted; the game models five major classes of naval units and puts them on the map.

I would probably fall into the "grognard" category. My favorite games are things like "Advanced Squad Leader" and now Matrix's massive "War in the Pacific." I find there's enough complexity and strategic depth in GGWaW to keep me fascinated. It also helps to play against a human in PBEM.

The resemblance to Risk is in one area only: the damaged/destroyed combat units. But in every other respect, this game has nothing to do with Risk. You can't conquer the world as Japan here, not against a competent opponent. In fact, the most common complaint about this game is that it is too tied to history: Germany can't overrun everything, Japan is constrained by logistics, China is doomed to play a defensive ground war, etc.

[Tac2i]

All opinions are welcome. My impression is that Matrix Games listens to its customers. Of course, no game is going to please everyone nor is every suggestion for improvement likely to be adopted. For me, I find the game very enjoyable and playable. Since I don't have a lot of time for online play, the Play By Email feature is a real joy for me. The next patch, which is due in a week or two, will likely make the game even more enjoyable. Note that a future patch (not the next one) will add network/online play.

[MrQuiet]

Have you tried the game on Advanced Supply? With that option on, it truly becomes a wargame -- one very far removed from Risk. Supply becomes an all-consuming concern for every power in the game. The Western Allies have to maintain transports to move supply around, to keep their fleets fueled up, and to keep Britain alive. (The Germans counter this with U-Boats, which are very important with "Advanced Supply" on but almost pointless with "Normal Supply" on.) Russia needs supply, via lend-lease and Murmanks convoys, to stay afloat. Germany never has enough supply. Japan has this problem, plus its heavily dependent on its transport network to get the supply where it needs to go. None of these considerations are remotely applicable in Risk, which is a completely different type of game.

Grotius I could not have said it any better than that. The whole supply equation balanced against production/research is what makes this global stratagy game really shine in my opinion. Add in PBEM playability with a 28 turn campain encompasing 6 years of WWII and it is the game I have always wanted to play.

Logistics! If you can not learn to think logisticaly, then you will have a major handicap with advanced rules. I think that is so cool.

-MrQuiet

[qgaliana]

Thanks for some good counterpoints.

I realise the game is intended to keep a high level of abstraction to simplify play. Unfortunately, I'm just not getting that WWII feel from it.

I do play with advanced supply on (essential to my mind). The game installs with advanced supply off, and computer production on. My first reactions before I found the game option screen and read the manual were unprintable . Like I said, I find the research, production and supply to be nicely done. They're the whole reason I'm playing the game right now.

I guess I should clarify the naval/air comment. Compared to most board games it's pretty good, but for a computer game it's so so - I had hoped for more reactive abilities kind of like Pacific War which had a lovely naval and air system. Maybe I haven't figured it out, but the opfire system doesn't really seem to address this very well. Some other things just seem odd: 'bridges' of transports across the oceans, air firepower vs land troops, the way these highly specialised units clump up and fight in massed battles like land units.

Generally it's the combat and damage resolution that ruins the feel of the game for me. I shove a pile of armies at another pile of armies and they blast each other on a huge scale. Entire corps and airgroups either dissappear or survive unscathed. It feels like a Napoleonic tabletop miniature battle broke out in the middle of the blitzkrieg.

But it will be interesting to see the next patch. There seem to be a lot of ideas flying around so I'll try to keep my eyes peeled on this board and see what looks like it is getting fixed. There's some good meat in this game, and I haven't tried all the countries yet.

[qgaliana]

In response to Grotius, who had some slightly more detailed remarks.

I should clear up the Risk reference. For our world war games we used house rules for production where certain regions let you build armies in place of the regular rules. A primitive version of production points, but it made it hard for anyone to conquer the world. We used the old plastic star shaped ten army pieces as fleets. So you can see how it starts to look less like Risk - still cheesy but we were young[:D]. Just to be clear, I wasn't trying to belittle this game, just an illustration of how I was hoping for something more to control on the computer.

I haven't tried any of the strategic games you mentioned on computer (Third Reich, yes, but on a table - 2nd edition IIRC). I ocassionally sniff around but I usually get turned off for one reason or another. This is the first one that piqued my interest enough to buy in quite some time. I think Pacific War and War in Russia colored my expectations here to a large degree. I could see from screenshots that the front end interface was going to be simple, but expected a lot more under the hood.

I'm almost certainly in the market for WiF if and when it comes out. And EiA is a certain buy for me. But these are board game adaptations, and I would be satisfied with a faithful reproduction and a competent AI. With a pure computer game I'm hoping to see all those nitty gritty details like PacWar and WiR had. Or massive scale that would have required a ping pong table back in the day. In other words, stuff that I wouldn't get in a board game.

[IDrinkBeer]

I'm almost certainly in the market for WiF if and when it comes out. And EiA is a certain buy for me. But these are board game adaptations, and I would be satisfied with a faithful reproduction and a competent AI. With a pure computer game I'm hoping to see all those nitty gritty details like PacWar and WiR had. Or massive scale that would have required a ping pong table back in the day. In other words, stuff that I wouldn't get in a board game.

Sorry to say that this isn't the game you are looking for... Have you tried WitP?

[Grotius]

I'm almost certainly in the market for WiF if and when it comes out. And EiA is a certain buy for me. But these are board game adaptations, and I would be satisfied with a faithful reproduction and a competent AI.

You and me both. Personally, I'd like to see this sort of thing for ASL too. In the meantime, I lurk in the WIF forum here, waiting forlornly for some news of progress.

With a pure computer game I'm hoping to see all those nitty gritty details like PacWar and WiR had.

Have you tried "War in the Pacific"? It's Gary Grigsby's updated version of PacWar, and IMHO it's the greatest computer wargame ever made. It models every significant ship, aircraft, pilot, and ground unit in the PTO. It has 60-mile hexes stretching from San Francisco to Karachi. It has one-day turns, for a 1600-turn campaign game. You have to move supply, resources, oil and fuel. Japan controls its production. Strategic bombing is modeled in detail. It's got its flaws, but it's quite the game. Check out some of the PBEM AARs in the forum here.

I think Matrix or 2by3 or someone has also said it's working on a new version of WiR. Not sure about that though.

Another option for you might be "Battles in Normandy" or its precursor, "Korsun Pocket." KP was a moderately complex game with a pretty cool supply and combat model.

Anyway, much as I adore WITP, I will say that GGWaW has a much higher ratio of fun to time invested. You have to think to win at GGWaW in a PBEM. (The AI is less of a challenge.) Which leads me to a concluding thought: GGWaW really shines best in a PBEM. I'm especially enjoying my 3-person PBEM; it's great fun having an ally who's constantly urging me to do stuff I don't want to do. [:'(]

[qgaliana]

Have you tried "War in the Pacific"? It's Gary Grigsby's updated version of PacWar, and IMHO it's the greatest computer wargame ever made. It models every significant ship, aircraft, pilot, and ground unit in the PTO. It has 60-mile hexes stretching from San Francisco to Karachi. It has one-day turns, for a 1600-turn campaign game. You have to move supply, resources, oil and fuel. Japan controls its production. Strategic bombing is modeled in detail. It's got its flaws, but it's quite the game.

Oh my... so tempting, but I burned soooo many hours on the original. Let see if I can get into this enough to launch a PBEM first. But I will definitely have a look eventually.

As for ASL, don't know it so well, I played the original Squad Leader. But a superb squad level sim is what recently reactivated my interest in comp war games so there's some excellent stuff out for that. Errr, it's by another company, is there some courtesy about not plugging outside games on this forum?

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana
Errr, it's by another company, is there some courtesy about not plugging outside games on this forum?

Not that I've ever noticed. The Matrix folks (unlike Battlefront, for example) seem quite happy for posters to talk about, and indeed link to, other people's games, particularly in the case of the more "indie" stuff. I think they know that their clientele will buy other games in addition to Matrix ones, not instead of them.

Most here will know about a particular wargame even if we havn't played it; certainly anything from HPS or Battlefront in particular, but news on any new game is always welcome. I only learned about Bull Run: Take Command 1861 through these boards, for example. That got picked up by the History Channel label, but having played their previous absolutely pathetic attempt at a Civil War game I wouldn't have gone near it if I hadn't known about the game beforehand.

[TOCarroll]

I've just GOT to toss in my two cents worth.

This game is a killer!!![&o]. As I mentioned in another post, it is not Advanced Third Reich, or Dran Nach Osten (boy that goes wayyyyy back). If you want divisional level WW2 with Brigades, Personalities, and lots of good grognard stuff, I'd reccomend Hearts of Iron II, with mods. I am quite fond of it myself.

[8|] HOWEVER, If you want a WW2 sim that you can PBEM in less than a year, that has a magnificantly diverse choice of stratigies, and one that has the (admiditally abstract) feel of WW2, this is IT.

I don't think a game with a map this size, 3 month turns, and the number of units in this game, could expect to "Feel" any better than Third Reich (the Boardgame). I have played over 100 complete games of Third Reich, and a heck of a lot more surrenderred games, and I feel that GGWaW has a better mix of stratigies. @by3 and Matrix have done an awesome job of using simpler rules that work well. One example, and I'll get of my soapbox.

In Third Reich, the Russians can redeploy factories at normal cost, or instantly destroy them. The result - no captured industry. In GGWaW the Russian player has a much harder choice, simply because he can't destroy the factories. In the real war he could, but not as painlessly as in 3R. Now industry frequently changes hands, as did in the real war. The 1st level damage after shipping nicely ups the ante for Comrade Stalin (well, Kruschief, actually). And Germany did take over a lot of European industry, albiet at reduced output (Multiplier of one.[8D][&o]

I think that is a good example of how hard the designers worked to keep this puppy playable (versus another person). I love HOI2, but it is pretty hard to finish a game with 1 on 1. So, while I often bash my head against HOI2's AI, GGWaW is my hands down choice for live gaming.

[TOCarroll]

Quickie PS:

I wanted to add that Matrix is one of those companies who are not finished tweeking the rules. After all, the game has only been out for 1 or 2 months.

Prussian Tom

[qgaliana]

Actually yeah, I was referring the Combat Mission series from Battlefront. Probably not news for anyone but I'm still impressed by it. Opposite end of the scale spectrum from GGWaW.

[qgaliana]

LOL Tom, I'll keep working at it. In a way, I've been fishing for some motivational speeches to get me into the game. I mean I paid for it, I want to like it. [;)]

For the record, my 3rd Reich experience included BRPs, no sign of factories. I must have missed some of the later editions? But the old game was strictly European theatre so, yeah, I can see a lot more global strategy options here. I'll take the time to try all the countries out, and some PBEM.

[Grifman]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

Generally it's the combat and damage resolution that ruins the feel of the game for me. I shove a pile of armies at another pile of armies and they blast each other on a huge scale. Entire corps and airgroups either dissappear or survive unscathed. It feels like a Napoleonic tabletop miniature battle broke out in the middle of the blitzkrieg.

I think you're not considering several factors:

1) One turn equals three months. Over that time period, entire corps and airgroups would be rendered combat ineffective or destroyed. Look at the Normandy or Stalingrad campaign or Bagration.

2) Remember some units are not destroyed but damaged - consider them units rendered combat ineffective. They go back into the pool to be "repaired" or "refitted" along with some of their population because they weren't destroyed

3) Some units are "destroyed" while others suffer no casualties or loss of combat effectiveness - which is obviously "unrealistic". But I don't think of it that way - I consider "destroyed" units as merely representing the losses of all units in that combat. I really don't think of the counters as units such as corps, armies, but representatives of manpower/combat effectiveness. Hence losses represent reductions to that, not true "units" destroyed.

No problem with your POV - I just see other ways of looking at combat and it's results that don't really bother me at this scale of operations and time.