World at War and WWI, which one has more strategic replay value?

Strategic Command is a series of deeply immersive turn based strategy games covering the greatest conflicts in modern history.
Post Reply
LiquidAgua
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2024 4:36 pm

World at War and WWI, which one has more strategic replay value?

Post by LiquidAgua »

I've played hundreds of hours to War in Europe against AI. I loved it, my favorite scenario. I'd like to purchase something different, but I'm unsure which of these two games (World at War or WWI) will have more strategic choices. I mean, in War in Europe, playing as Axis I may choose which campaign I want to fight, I may Sealion, or invade URSS by the north or south or both, ignore Egipt, focus on naval or another tech. It's not as many as I would like, but it's enough for me. I'm looking for a game which allow you multiple "big scale" strategies and you may still win. Which of these, WaW or WWI have more "strategic" replay value which are good for a victory?
HalfTauter
Posts: 40
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2022 4:48 pm

Re: World at War and WWI, which one has more strategic replay value?

Post by HalfTauter »

I feel like SC:WW1 is the better game, and has much more strategic replayability.

Personally I feel that the WW2 games are more linear and scripted. As the Axis you have to attack France, you always defeat it, you get Norway and Denmark "for free", you have to attack Russia and 1943/1944 it is D-Day time. As the Allies it's a waiting game until your technology and MPP is unbeatable. What's the biggest strategic choice you have? Delay Barbarossa?

Meanwhile SC:WW1 you immediately enter the war with everyone. The entrance of Italy and even the Ottomans is not guaranteed. There are also immediately a plethora of strategic choices. Do you attack Russia first, or France first? Go through Belgium, or not, or go even through Switzerland? Build up a suprise force to pre-empt Italy? Do you attack Serbia? As the Entente, do you play aggressive, be passive, do a Gallipolli, get Romania/the US in, where do you send the British troops, do you go on an aggressive sub hunt? I remember my first multiplayer game where I was thinking a lot whether or not I should send my spare limited reserves to either Serbia, Russia or France. There always more fronts and your plans for 1915/1916 might be not suited once those years arrive.

Technology is also much better in SC:WW1. In the WW2 games you spend a single chit in all the critical technologies and you're done. In SC:WW1, a single chit in the critical technologies is not enough, but spending more means you don't have enough MPP for the other technologies. So you immediately need to make choices which technologies you prefer. Especially for the Entente this is critical.
LiquidAgua
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2024 4:36 pm

Re: World at War and WWI, which one has more strategic replay value?

Post by LiquidAgua »

Thanks you, very helpful all you said!
Post Reply

Return to “Strategic Command Series”