Matrix Games Forums

I've been thinking about strategic WWII games. Most of the ones that I have looked at seem to be a supercharged Axis and Allies. Meaning the basic Axis and Allies design but with more detail for units types, values, etc.

Are there any strategic WWII games that have taken a different approach?

-Dan Verssen

Strategic Command comes to mind, and SC2, due out fairly soon looks like a great game. Go to the Battlefront site and read Blashy's hotseat AAR. You'll get a good idea of the game makeup, but do not put too much stock in the way the game played out, as Blashy was primarily showing us the features.

strategic WW2 with lots of detail and flavour = Hearts of Iron 2 by Paradox
its is area based rather than hex and its pausable time based, not an RTS

a new 1.3 patch has just come out, along with a 1.3a hotifx a week later [:D]
i would recommend it

Dan,

ORIGINAL: Dan Verssen
I've been thinking about strategic WWII games. Most of the ones that I have looked at seem to be a supercharged Axis and Allies. Meaning the basic Axis and Allies design but with more detail for units types, values, etc.

Are there any strategic WWII games that have taken a different approach?

You're right - in general terms that pretty much describes all of them, including those mentioned above. I would say that perhaps HOI 2, while still in the same ballpark, differs more from this approach in the feel than either GGWaW or SC/SC2. The only complaint I have with HOI 2 is that for whatever reason the time commitment combined with the detail level doesn't seem to work for me in my schedule, but many folks love it. I loved Advanced Third Reich and Clash of Steel, so GGWaW is truly right up my alley and SC for when I want a more beer and pretzels approach (but very fun).

But yeah, all are basically (as a very general analogy) supercharged Axis and Allies in how they approach it. I don't think it makes sense to veer too far from that though for the "entire war" scale. What were you hoping for in terms of a different approach?

Regards,

- Erik

And most of all of of Parodox stuff "for me". 'sucks big time' any way. Just type it into a search engine and all sorts of bad jive is yours from bad reviews to rubbish web blogs. Not good if your day job is in game code!!!

and SC for when I want a more beer and pretzels approach (but very fun).

Beer & Pretzels???!! Bite your tongue, or better yet cut off your fingers. There's a lot of depth to that game and at least the ai is more challenging than either HOI or GGWAW. Battlefront makes the bestest wargame/strategy games. (ducking) hehe

The only fun out of HOI's are playing minors, if you play a major it's just a waste of time, there's no challenge. But, if you play Brazil or Rumania HOI's can be fun.

ORIGINAL: watchtower

And most of all of of Parodox stuff "for me". 'sucks big time' any way. Just type it into a search engine and all sorts of bad jive is yours from bad reviews to rubbish web blogs. Not good if your day job is in game code!!!

Interesting... there are two games currently running on my cmputers at home: HOI2 and WitP. I expect to be playing WitP or WPO on one, and HOI2 or EU2 or Victoria on the other, for some very long time to come.

(I may need some extra time for TOAW:ME at some point....)

You can pick up EU2 very cheaply nowadays - buy it, patch it, play it and see if you really, really, really dislike the style. I didn't expect to like it at all - I belonged to the "Turn-based hex games are the only true wargames" party - but was very pleasantly surprised.

Steve.

Hello Erik,

I guess what I was looking for was to see what was available in terms of new approaches to the subject. I played A&A a lot 20 years ago (yikes!) and I was curious as to what had been done with strategic WWII in computer games.

I did a quick search with google and ran through a few websites.

What I found was games that had everything from straight boardgame-on-a-computer-screen graphics all the way up to really nice 3D graphics with animations.

But, in terms of the game mechanics, they all looked to be A&A with more production/deployment details.

-Dan Verssen

I guess the question that begs to be asked is what are you hoping to find Dan? Or perhaps, what type of WWII strategic game would you like to be designed? A World in Flames, and HPS WWII, will eventually and hopefully satisfy the SPI moster game itch. SC2 will be a fine WWII European Theater experience with WitP covering the Pacific. World at War provides a good grand strategy game without overwhelming the average player. And even the classic Panzer General gave you a nice "beer and pretzels" game combining strategic and tactical elements..... I just am not certain what is it you would like to see...

Heh I'll tell you what I'd like to see J P. A monster game of WW2 where when you move your units and then goto the attack mode all those units go into a deeper version of the map and battefield. Kinda like HPS's Gettysburg does it. You know break that 200 mile hex down to say 2 to 12 miles per hex in the battle map portion of it. Now THAT would be the MONSTER game of all times.

Well one game that I failed to mention is BattleFront's Combat Mission Campaigns....apparantly you will be maneuvering on an operational strategic map but when battles occur, they will be played out using the Combat Mission game...You can simply play the Campaign game without using Combat Mission, as the battles will be resolved differently, but the main intention is to conduct the individual campaign battles on the tactical CM scale....Now this is a different concept!

http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmc/index.html

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

and SC for when I want a more beer and pretzels approach (but very fun).

Beer & Pretzels???!! Bite your tongue, or better yet cut off your fingers. There's a lot of depth to that game and at least the ai is more challenging than either HOI or GGWAW. Battlefront makes the bestest wargame/strategy games. (ducking) hehe

The only fun out of HOI's are playing minors, if you play a major it's just a waste of time, there's no challenge. But, if you play Brazil or Rumania HOI's can be fun.

I played the heck out of the original SC and rank it among my favorite games, but it was definitely beer and pretzels, in my opinion. By that I mean that there were some very unrealistic results possible and a simplified approach to many things - that contributed to the fun, frankly, but it had to be played with some suspension of disbelief. Please note, this is just Erik the gamer's opinion, not a "Matrix Official Opinion" and I'm not saying you're wrong, since "beer and pretzels" is definitely a subjective description. My SC CD is still in the CD rack on my desk, but I personally prefer GGWAW for depth and coverage of the whole war as well as more realistic results.

SC2, on the other hand, looks like a much more realistic game but we've also got a few things in the works to go further than GGWAW. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

Dan,

ORIGINAL: Dan Verssen
I guess what I was looking for was to see what was available in terms of new approaches to the subject. I played A&A a lot 20 years ago (yikes!) and I was curious as to what had been done with strategic WWII in computer games.

I did a quick search with google and ran through a few websites.

What I found was games that had everything from straight boardgame-on-a-computer-screen graphics all the way up to really nice 3D graphics with animations.

But, in terms of the game mechanics, they all looked to be A&A with more production/deployment details.

I think a lot of that comes down to the fact that at the grand strategic level, economy, production, deployment, etc. all become important. You have to model those somehow at that level or you're not doing grand strategy. HoI tries to model everything at a remarkable level of detail and it does succeed to a large degree. SC takes the opposite approach and IMHO GGWAW is in the middle. I think each of these games and engines has room for improvement and they each make different choices on what to abstract or detail, but I don't see much room for radical change while still modeling WWII-specific grand strategy.

I'd like to see more grand strategy for other eras, personally.

Regards,

- Erik

SC2, on the other hand, looks like a much more realistic game but we've also got a few things in the works to go further than GGWAW.

Are any of these Christmas releases?.....[;)]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
SC2, on the other hand, looks like a much more realistic game but we've also got a few things in the works to go further than GGWAW. [8D]

<sitting upright>
<innocent voice>

oh, like what ?

</sitting up>
</innocent voice>

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx

ORIGINAL: J P Falcon

Are any of these Christmas releases?.....[;)]

SC 2 is supposed to be out next month.

oh, like what ?

I'll second Eddy's post.........So.......Erik, would you like to comment?

My biggest aversion...well, not actually an aversion, let's just say WaW's shortcoming, is the lack of combat maneuver. That tactical flavor, although abstracted in SC, is totally lacking in WaW.

There is no personalization in WaW. You can't name units. They can't become "elite" status, through experience, upgrades, or leadership,

And probably the biggest drawback,....not even an inkling of diplomacy.

Here's a question that popped-up. Maybe I'm missing something, but a couple people have mentioned the need for diplomacy in a strategic WWII game.

I'm wondering how this would present itself? It seems like the sides were pretty clear cut from the start and there wasn't any trading (as far as I know) between the opposing countries once the shooting started.

What role would diplomacy have in the game?

-Dan Verssen

ORIGINAL: Dan Verssen

Here's a question that popped-up. Maybe I'm missing something, but a couple people have mentioned the need for diplomacy in a strategic WWII game.

I'm wondering how this would present itself? It seems like the sides were pretty clear cut from the start and there wasn't any trading (as far as I know) between the opposing countries once the shooting started.

What role would diplomacy have in the game?

-Dan Verssen

Well judging from the AAR for SC2, Diplomatic influence towards neutrals can be "bought" with your MMP's which could increase the possibility of a neutral joining one side or another, and therefore gaining contol of their armies and free passage through their territories....Spain might be an interesting one for the Axis to try in order to have a route to Gibralter..... It is an option so one can disable it if they wanted to....

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

and SC for when I want a more beer and pretzels approach (but very fun).

Beer & Pretzels???!! Bite your tongue, or better yet cut off your fingers. There's a lot of depth to that game and at least the ai is more challenging than either HOI or GGWAW. Battlefront makes the bestest wargame/strategy games. (ducking) hehe

The only fun out of HOI's are playing minors, if you play a major it's just a waste of time, there's no challenge. But, if you play Brazil or Rumania HOI's can be fun.

I played the heck out of the original SC and rank it among my favorite games, but it was definitely beer and pretzels, in my opinion. By that I mean that there were some very unrealistic results possible and a simplified approach to many things - that contributed to the fun, frankly, but it had to be played with some suspension of disbelief. Please note, this is just Erik the gamer's opinion, not a "Matrix Official Opinion" and I'm not saying you're wrong, since "beer and pretzels" is definitely a subjective description. My SC CD is still in the CD rack on my desk, but I personally prefer GGWAW for depth and coverage of the whole war as well as more realistic results.

SC2, on the other hand, looks like a much more realistic game but we've also got a few things in the works to go further than GGWAW. [8D]

Regards,

- Erik

Lol Erik I was just pokin fun, just like most any game people have their ideas of what is beer and pretzels and what is not. I find the Combat Mission Series Beer & Pretzels compared to say SPWAW. I like them both cause I have times on wanting B&P vs a grey matter game.

Kinda the same way with the HOI's vs GGWAW, I really think GGWAW is more complex than the HOI's because the HOI's are really just a civilization type game to me with the techs to unlock and the combat is so abstract it just doesn't hold much in the way of thought, build up a huge force and romp over the AI. Pretty simple. GGWAW really forces one to think out their pattern of research, you fall behind 2 points in a field and you're toast AI or no. It just doesn't offer the "glitz & glitter" that HOI's offer, but, under the hood it's engine is really the better choice for challenge.

WITP I've never seen nor tried and probably never will, when I attempted to play PACIFIC WAR (the free download) that was enough to turn me off the "complex monster" games for good. "Second Front" by SSI was the first attempt at a monster game of the Eastern Front back in the 80's and I just don't care for all that micromanagment per turn for all those units. Let alone figure out combat odds and advantages and disadvantages.

So, I'm more of an intermediate to B&P type of player, the more rules/units you throw at me the more I get bored with the process. A good balance is what I always look for though. And a good AI.

That's not to say though I wouldn't like to see a huge monster game of the WTO with turn based strategic and then using the Combat Mission series to play out the battles, or in some cases the SPWAW series as well. I think both would be great on a grand scale like that married to a more strategic turn based grand strategy game.