Matrix Games Forums

hello, I am what you could call a semi-newbie to matrix games. I bought Korsun Pocket, and enjoyed it tremendously, leading me to buy War in the Pacific, of which I am now a seasoned grunt. My forced 5 month abscence from this site, however (work work work), has kind of left me in the dark about some of the new games out with matrix games. When I left WAW was about to come out (in a few weeks). I would like some unbiased opinion on the game, if that would be possible, as well as the level of complexity this game posseses. I like complex games, but let's just say playing war in the pacific in anything other than complete mental form is very very hard.

Thanks for all your comments and time,

Guillaume

I think the best way to reply to your question might be to tell you that you can download a demo version for free. It includes all features from the full game except that you can only play from summer 41 till summer 42.

I believe you can download it here: http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=27019

I agree that the demo would answer your opinions for the most part, but heres my 2 cents.

its an easy game to grasp and I think you could compare it to chess more than ww2. everything about WitP is ww2, but the level of "realism" in W@W isn't up to the same level.

still I probably play 2-3 times as much W@W than I do WitP simply because I enjoy the strategy of "chess" and yet it doesn't take as much concentration to details as WitP does.

I like it because sometimes I'm tired and its just relaxing not to have to concentrate. Not only that, if you get caught up in it you can be done in abut 4 hours or so. I bought it 3 months ago and I still play it. It's like the opposite of micromangement.

I actually think it takes a good deal of concentration if you want to play it well - atleast against human opponents. Not rarely is the placement of a single unit here or there crucial - not quite as much as in chess but still I concur with aletoledo's description that in some ways it does share some qualities with chess.

I find the relative simplicity of this game is that which provides it with elegance & real strategic latitude.

You can muddle through a game against the AI, but against a human opponent you will need to develop a plan & execute it well, bearing in mind that whilst plans are useless, planning is essential (Eisenhower)

I think it is the logical evolution of Axis and Allies. Same elegant strategies, but with a level of depth and complexity difficult to achieve with a true boardgame.

Plus it is a blast to play!

I rate it a 9 out of 10

ORIGINAL: JanSorensen

I actually think it takes a good deal of concentration if you want to play it well - atleast against human opponents. Not rarely is the placement of a single unit here or there crucial - not quite as much as in chess but still I concur with aletoledo's description that in some ways it does share some qualities with chess.

I understand what you are saying and I agree 100%. For me, the simpicity is what appeals to me, especially when I'm beat from work. But you are right about the importance on placing units though. I have to say, I love this game!