Upgrade?

[TexHorns]

I bought WAW when it first came out. I enjoy WWII grand strategic very much. I played it for awhile, but it never stuck with me. I would have preferred more diplomacy, nato symbols (call me old), and seperation of the western allies. But I wouldn't call any of them game killers. I just moved on t other intersting games.

I am intrigued by the sequel and what it offers. My concern is having to pay for a new game after already buying it once. It sounds like the new bells and whistles should have been offered as a patch. Now I know it is about money, and we want developers to stay in business. So, will owners of the original game be given a price break to upgrade to the sequel or will we be asked to by a new game. It seems that the original game should have been what this sequel is now gonna be.

It will have to offer me a lot to get me to buy it again. There are a lot options out there for my limited game budget and it is hard to convince me to buy the same game twice.

[Uncle_Joe]

I dont know about any form of upgrade program or discount for original owners, but I definately believe that the changes are well beyond any reasonable expectations for a patch/expansion.
 
While the core game engine is largely unchanged, the whole way you go about certain strategies is different. Since the 'Total War' scenario starts earlier ('39), you have a few more turns to decide on an early strategy. Research is limited in the early years and spying and trade agreements give more options for what to accomplish.
 
Some of the biggest changes have been to the combat engine. Airpower can no longer wholesale destroy enemy units. Rails and combined arms have become important so realistic of uses of airpower (like strafing rail stock and transportation hubs) becomes a primary goal. The changes in the tech system and the cumulative suppression system prevent the creation of 'untouchable' units that was possible in WaW.
 
The new political system ensures that hunting down neutrals (especially friendly ones) has a price tag attached in lost allies or in pushing other neutrals into the enemy's hands. It also ensures that the game will often play out different even if the same strategies are followed since you can never tell for sure who will join when or to what degree in the early game.
 
Even 'minor' things like units being able to become Veteran and Elite can have a pretty profound effect on play. In one of my recent games, I had a handful of Vet and Elite carrier groups as the Japanese and I was dominating early battles. I got caught in a bad position and lost most of them in a battle (near Midway actually) and even though the airgroups were 'repaired' a few turns later, they had lost their Vet/Elite status and the effect was very noticible. It really did feel like I lost my valuable experienced air crews at Midway (although I hadnt lost my main carriers like the Japanese did)
 
As far as seperating the WAllies, well, they are still the same player, but French units are differentiated with a national flag early on (as are Italian units for the Axis). Since England and the US operated so closely in reality and since they retain distinct unit graphics, the effect of having them together is minimized IMO. US (and USSR) entry is more logically tied to game events rather than to a specific clock so they will respond earlier to a more aggressive Axis play.
 
There have been changes to the victory system and 'Strategic Points' have been added to the map to represent areas vital for reasons beyond the simply economic value. To that end, Suez, India, and Australia all have increased importance in the game. It may not be obvious when first playing, but this change can have a huge effect on how the game plays out. There is more incentive for Germany to try and take Egypt and Japan can earn some major points for the attempted Automatic Victory by striking out into the South Pacific and fixating on Australia. The converse of this is that the Allies now have to prepare to fight at least a holding action in the SoPac or risk losing the game before they can start to retake the initiative. So far, I've actually had a number of carrier battles in the SoPac and there is actual reason to occupy some of the island bases in the region.
 
On the presentation level, the units will change in appearance as they increase in tech levels. Certain areas of the map have been redone to fix anomalies or to increase the importance of certain regions. For those who dont like the 'eye-candy' look of the units, standard NATO units can be used instead.
 
So, the overall gist is that while the gameplay is largely the same in mechanics, the result is a different game experience. Its not really even any harder to play per se, but there is simply more to do and more realism in the results. Many of the bizarre extreme strategies are gone, but there are plenty of opportunities for 'what ifs' in the game (perhaps more since the way the early game will play out is often different).
 
Again, I dont have any idea what the final price will be, but I can assure you that if you were a fan of the first game at all or even just interested in middlin' complexity strategic game of WW2, it will be worth picking up.[:)]

[Syagrius]

I just hope its not going to be too much expensive, like in the 20$ price range.

[Petiloup]

ORIGINAL: Syagrius

I just hope its not going to be too much expensive, like in the 20$ price range.

Looking at how many hours I spent playing the first one I think even double that price would be worth the money but of course I should maybe shut up here or they'll do it [:D]

[christian brown]

I´m not rich but I paid 49 dollars at the P/X (tax-free) for GGWaW and would pay the same again for this game.  If you´re a bit cheap about entertainment and divide the hours you´ll enjoy (50~100+) by the price, it´s cheaper than TV and a heck of a lot more entertaining.  If you are moderately interested, it´s a good deal.  If you´re passionate about it, the amount won´t matter to you at all.  I have no idea what this will price out at, but I can say for myself as someone who earns about 10 bucks an hour, it´s worth at least 50.  PS, buy it online from Matrix to cut out the retailer/middleman.

[Syagrius]

ORIGINAL: christian brown

I´m not rich but I paid 49 dollars at the P/X (tax-free) for GGWaW and would pay the same again for this game.  If you´re a bit cheap about entertainment and divide the hours you´ll enjoy (50~100+) by the price, it´s cheaper than TV and a heck of a lot more entertaining.  If you are moderately interested, it´s a good deal.  If you´re passionate about it, the amount won´t matter to you at all.  I have no idea what this will price out at, but I can say for myself as someone who earns about 10 bucks an hour, it´s worth at least 50.  PS, buy it online from Matrix to cut out the retailer/middleman.

I won't. I am from Canada and prices are crazy in the Matrix store, like 62$ for CoG!! [X(]
I ordered it from NWS instead.

[TexHorns]

Your description sounds like a more enjoyable experience, and much more to my taste than the original. So you have my attention. But it begs the question as to why was it not done this way (right?) the first time?

[TexHorns]

Sorry if i confused anyone. My reply was to Uncle Joe.

[Joel Billings]

ORIGINAL: TexHorns

Your description sounds like a more enjoyable experience, and much more to my taste than the original. So you have my attention. But it begs the question as to why was it not done this way (right?) the first time?

Because the goal of the first game was to keep it simple and keep it like the original WWII and try not to focus on the politics. That game took over 2 years to develop and it was well liked and received awards. That's not to say we couldn't improve it after having thousands of people play it and provide feedback. There were things that we felt could greatly improve the realism that would add some more complexity (but not too much) so we took another look at the game after it was out for over six months and came up with a greatly modified design. We think WaW is good. We think AWD is better in terms of being more realistic (and having a few more interface features that the extra time allowed us to think about and add in), but it is a little more complex. Different people have different tastes so hopefully one (if not both) of the games will appeal to you.

[WanderingHead]

ORIGINAL: TexHorns
Your description sounds like a more enjoyable experience, and much more to my taste than the original. So you have my attention. But it begs the question as to why was it not done this way (right?) the first time?

I will never begrudge the extra year and a half I got to enjoy WAW1 before AWD came along!

[CTB123]

I would have no problem paying $40 US dollars(here in the US) for AWD. 

Tony