Matrix Games Forums

Hi, I enjoy the game partly because grand-strategy turn based games are so rare ! But also because the game is enjoyable, well designed and last but not least easy to learn.

However, I think that it is a little bit to "deterministic". This means that events are too predictable and there is not enoug possibilities for fantaisy in the game. I know there are many possible options for german for instance: develop armor units or navy, etc , to invade Norway or not to invade Norway etc. etc.

But for instance, the first turn for germany seems to be only one way: invade France... and nothing else.

Also, systematic entry to war od SU in 43 is frustrating. (I read it could be fixed by mod?).
To summarize, I think that the game is too monotonous and I feel a bit frustrated.

Is it because one turn represents one quarter ?

Who could prove me I'm wrong ? please !

How difficult would it be to implement a system, perhaps for PBEM only, that mimics the system used in WiF's? The more aggressive Germany and Japan are, the better chance the US will enter the war, and the US, and vice versa. Having a hard date for US or even Russian entry is very unrealisitc.

M

i agree as well. [8D]

i think it will be nice to impose a certain threshold PP, of which when Axis achieved "X" amt of PP, there is a certain chance that the US (or even the Russia) will step in next turn. the more PP the Axis achieved, the more likely the frozen allies will step in. this will make the game more unpredictable and exciting.

depending on what the "X" PP threshold is set at (preferably there's a PP threshold range where the players can set in the option menu), this feature can prevent Axis AV w/o Russia activated and/ or w/ US only get involved in a round or two. or at least, make the Axis players to consider a bit more before they go land grabbing.

of course i understand that it is easier to talk than to do, as im not an IT ppl, i dont know how difficult it is gonna to make such changes. but given the close attention given by the 2by3 guys to this game, i think it is not totally impossible. [8|]

AN

Go to the mods section an try the '39 senario.

However, I think that it is a little bit to "deterministic". This means that events are too predictable and there is not enoug possibilities for fantaisy in the game. I know there are many possible options for german for instance: develop armor units or navy, etc , to invade Norway or not to invade Norway etc. etc.

But for instance, the first turn for germany seems to be only one way: invade France... and nothing else.

Also, systematic entry to war od SU in 43 is frustrating. (I read it could be fixed by mod?).
To summarize, I think that the game is too monotonous and I feel a bit frustrated.

Is it because one turn represents one quarter ?

My feelings, exactly. And I might add the that I dislike the intensity in this game when playing the Axis. I feel like the Axis have to play perfectly, follow a particular "recipe for victory," and if they do this, they can't lose. It is a good game, but I've lost interest in it. WiF is more my style where you can relax in front of a big board, plod along, make the occasional mistake or oversight and not feel like you are doomed because of it. WaW is like playing paintball in a small warehouse.

Also, systematic entry to war of SU in 43 is frustrating.

The "systematic entry" does reflect Uncle Joe's original plan, although I believe he planned to attack Germany in 1942.

I know this is grand-strategy, but is it not "too-grand" strategy by chance ? 1 turn = 1 quarter ... is it realistic ? I don't think it is realistic to planify actions for the next quarter in a game simulating a short time period like WW2. A monthly basis would be much more fun and would allow much more possible strategies (mistakes/corrections/new startegy) making the game more fun. I my opinion, that may be one cause of the frustration I feel when playing. A one turn = one quarter could be appropriate for a two-century duration game like EU.

What do you think guys ?

If you do 1month=1turn you have to include a lot more provinces to be realistic.

Sure ! is that not a flaw in the game conception ? the scale ...

First I like to say nukkxx has expressed an opinion that is likely shared by some others. That's ok. My opinion is the game lives up to its design concepts very well. It is fast paced and fun while maintaining a depth of play that I find challenging. Sure, as with any game, over time game play will fall into certain patterns as best strategies are discovered, especially by those that play the game a lot. It is a very rare game that holds our attention more than a few months. Most of us wargamers are always on the lookout for the latest new game. I suppose their wouldn't be a wargaming industry if that were not true. That said I believe ADG's World in Flames, when released in computer form, may have the depth and time scale many are looking for in a global game of WWII. I have the board game in my collection and I'm definitely looking forward to the computer version. What we don't want is a game like Hearts of Iron (I or II) that is nearly impossible to play under the crushing weight of too much detail.

I feel like the Axis have to play perfectly, follow a particular "recipe for victory," and if they do this, they can't lose.

I agree that it seems like the axis has to play a perfect game to win and even one slip-up is game ending.

on the other hand, it shouldn't be easy for the axis. I've played some good allied players that would be able to stop just about any axis auto-victory attempt. really the only trick to stopping axis is knowing what they're going to try early.

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead

And I might add the that I dislike the intensity in this game when playing the Axis. I feel like the Axis have to play perfectly, follow a particular "recipe for victory," and if they do this, they can't lose. It is a good game, but I've lost interest in it. WiF is more my style where you can relax in front of a big board, plod along, make the occasional mistake or oversight and not feel like you are doomed because of it. WaW is like playing paintball in a small warehouse.

Do you mean the Axis have to play perfectly to win the war (an Automatic Victory) or win the game (by surviving until the game ends in 1946)? If the former I don't agree with you because winning an AV is possible without even attacking the US or Russia, see Oleg's thread on this. If you mean winning the game, I still don't agree with you as if the Axis plays conservatively (which in my experience few Axis players do) they stand a very good chance of holding out until 1946. IMHO the the chances of the Axis winning the war should be slim, just as they were historically. If you want to play a game where the chances are equal play Axis & Allies. Would you want to play a game of Desert Storm where the Iraqis stand as good a chance to capture Washington as the Americans do to capture Baghdad?

Perhaps a "Worlds" at War expansion would please all sides; see the Topic for details:

ORIGINAL: Cheesehead
And I might add the that I dislike the intensity in this game when playing the Axis. I feel like the Axis have to play perfectly, follow a particular "recipe for victory," and if they do this, they can't lose.

There is an element of truth in what you say. The condensed time frame, <24 turns, means that you can't waste a turn or a move. Making a mistake on one turn, requiring a correction the next turn, really sets you back. this is probably what you're finding intense.

As far as the recipe for victory. I haven't seen a perfect model yet. Much like chess, WaW seems to have no perfect openings. Like chess, its moves and gambits have counters. The key to victory is gauging your opponents moves and using the appropriate counter.

Hi pyrhic,

WaW seems to have no perfect openings

are you sure that when you play Germany:

1- Invade France

Is not a mandatory opening ?