What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Gary Grigsby's World At War gives you the chance to really run a world war. History is yours to write and things may turn out differently. The Western Allies may be conquered by Germany, or Japan may defeat China. With you at the controls, leading the fates of nations and alliances. Take command in this dynamic turn-based game and test strategies that long-past generals and world leaders could only dream of. Now anything is possible in this new strategic offering from Matrix Games and 2 by 3 Games.

Moderators: Joel Billings, JanSorensen

TBKR
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:07 am

What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by TBKR »

Just curious - having purchased CoG, WITP, SPWAW, EUI & II, CK, Victoria I love games that have a huge amount of detail. Since HOI2 Doomsday will be released soon I was wondering whether anyone had any opinions on the merits of GGWAW vs HOI2 before I purchase.
User avatar
Jevhaddah
Posts: 627
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 2:38 am
Location: Scotland

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by Jevhaddah »

Yoo can't really compare them as they are two very different games. Both are Grand Strategy but thats really where the similarities end.

Out of the two IMHO HOI 2 is the more detailed in that there is lot more to do regarding Production, research, convoys and organising yer military etc.

I play and like them both and have just ordered the Doomsday Update for HoI 2.

Sorry I can't be more help but 'Best' is really up to individual taste.. [:)]

Cheers

Jevvy



I am really quite mad yoo know!
dobeln
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by dobeln »

I played them both, although I have to admit I haven't caught up with all the HoI II patches. I prefer GGWaW by far - i consider it one of the best games I have ever played. This is to some degree because I like manageable games, where you can maintain "narrative flow". Also, I have strong preferences against the kind of air- and sea mechanics that HoI uses. (Also. Gazzillions of units on huge maps is a no-no for me)

If large, sprawling games are your cup of tea however, you might see things differently. Alas, they are both good games :)
User avatar
Lebatron
Posts: 1625
Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 4:27 pm
Location: Upper Michigan

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by Lebatron »

In WAW the game is in the movement, your builds, and your researches. With the bulk of the strategy laying with your movement choices. Its simple and deep like chess.

In HOI the fun part of gaming is overtaxed by an unnecessary depth of choices. For instance, just one of many things, the leader aspect added nothing and just created busy work as you keep pausing the game to reasign your best leaders for a battle. If your always doing that, why not just give a pemamnent +5 to all your troops all the time. Then it makes it totally moot to add it to the game in the first place. But its there to drive sales. They can then say our game does it all. It has leaders you can assign. Its got 10 billion tech choices, etc ,etc, etc. But with all that supposed depth I discoved it didn't have any. All the game is in the end is one major huge distraction. It's an exercise in data shifting, nothing more. You might as well do some accounting and get paid to shift numbers around.

But if that's your idea of fun and you got lots of extra energy to burn then HOI may just be your game.
Jesse LeBreton, AKA Lebatron
Development team- GG's WAW A World Divided
User avatar
ravinhood
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:26 am

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by ravinhood »

Supreme Ruler 2010 is better than both of them and has the MOST detailed gameplay. So it's the BEST! ;)
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?


TBKR
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:07 am

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by TBKR »

Thanks for your responses.

Reading the above posts highlights one of the things that I have known for some time. People like grand strategy simulations or wargames for many different reasons. For me, what I love is getting immersed in the historic detail. The more detail within the game the better. For instance WitP, whilst overwhelming for many due to it's detail is undoubtedly one of the best simulations I've ever played. Give me a game that contains the names of individual pilots in squadrons like WitP over a simplistic abstract wargame any day. Similarly, for me it's Football Manager 2006 over any football management simulation that trumpets the latest in 3D graphics.

As someone who has probably invested too much of my spare time in playing these games there is nothing more disappointing than a game that superficially looks good but when you get into it, has so many abstract concepts that it almost becomes a fantasy game.

When I think about my favourite games over the past 10 years it's clear that for me, detail is everything.

For instance AoR was great due to the ability to create your own uniforms
The Steel Panthers series were fantastic due to the sheer choice of countries and units whilst the Paradox games of EUI & II, CK and Victoria were amazingly immersive due to the thousands of provinces, hundreds of nations and implementation of innovative concepts such as culture and religion.

Based on your responses it would seem to me that HOI2 is the way to go for a person who enjoys immersion in detail, however I curious as to what others think. Immersion in detail v simplicity with compelling game play? I don’t think they are necessarily mutually exclusive.
dobeln
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by dobeln »

I should add that I really enjoyed Europa Universalis I and II (Still keeping II on the HD). I have nothing against detail in itself - but I want detail to be meaningful (Europa Universalis has both detail and good game flow and pacing). IMO, the EU engine is better suited to the pre-WWI era, rather than WWII. This is not mainly because of the aforementioned pacing issues (even though the WWII setting adds detail), but also because having air and sea operations on the same timescale is cumbersome. Also, the movement system has a hard time modelling frontline-based warfare. (This problem exists in WAW as well, but due to the smaller number of "regions", it is less of an issue...)

Also, not only excessive abstraction creates totally reality-divorced games - unmanagable detail is often the factor that turn World War II into some nearly unrecognizable affair. In my opinion, the game that has managed to strike the best balance betweeen all these factors in WWII simulation is the 1993 oldie Clash of Steel. It's so good some poor soul actually wrote a 26 page treatise on what makes it so good ;) A Gary Grigsby remake would be really appriciated. (hint, hint) :P

http://grognard.com/info1/steel.pdf

The start of the paper sums up the problem faced by game designers very nicely:

"The designer of a wargame is confronted with two conflicting goals. One goal is to design a game that is fun to play. The other is to design a game which is reasonably accurate. A little too much of the former and one builds a “beer and pretzels” game; fast and fun at the expensive of realism. A design based on the later often finds its way into the “monster” game hall of fame; big and slow with lots of stats. It is indeed rare when a design emerges which nicely balances the two extremes. The end result is a game which is
relatively fast and fun while also embodying solid realistic modeling. SSI's Clash of Steel (COS) is one such game."
sapper_astro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:10 pm

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by sapper_astro »

Lots of time on your hands? go HoI2

Not much time? GGWAW

Since i get both time and little time, from time to time, I have both.[:'(]
JanSorensen
Posts: 2536
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 10:18 pm
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by JanSorensen »

If you like to move alot of units / administer alot of small things where each item matters very little I imagine HOI is your game.

If you like a game where you move relatively fewer units but each move actually matters - WaW is the game for you.
Forwarn45
Posts: 718
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:53 am

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by Forwarn45 »

HOI2 had a lot of promise - but I've been somewhat disappointed in it. The AI is still kind of weak in some major areas, and I haven't tried games versus humans because I think they would either be really rushed or difficult to finish.

On the other hand, WAW is great for PBEM, and the AI wasn't bad when I first started playing. In fact, even for intermediate players it can be a challenge with the right settings - particularly if you limit yourself to one country. You can finish a game in a reasonable amount of time, but there is enough depth in the choices you have to make that there is great replayability. So - go WAW! [:D]

BTW - I would love to see Clash of Steel remade! I really enjoyed that game, and it made for a good hotseat game to play with friends.
User avatar
ravinhood
Posts: 3829
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:26 am

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by ravinhood »

Anyone remember "Storm Across Europe" by SSI? ;)
WE/I WANT 1:1 or something even 1:2 death animations in the KOIOS PANZER COMMAND SERIES don't forget Erik! ;) and Floating Paratroopers We grew up with Minor, Marginal and Decisive victories why rock the boat with Marginal, Decisive and Legendary?


SeaMonkey
Posts: 796
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:18 am

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by SeaMonkey »

Well it may not be CoS, but close from what I've been told and I know it has great Hotseat attributes.

Strategic Command............and very soon.......SC2.[8D]
dobeln
Posts: 280
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 4:43 pm

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by dobeln »

Tried SC, but imho it wasn't as good as COS. To some degree this is because it implemented Uber Airpower, where a tactical air fleet can wipe out an enemy army group halfway across Europe. Also, I'm somewhat put off by the fact that SC2 uses squares.
sapper_astro
Posts: 298
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 2:10 pm

RE: What's better HOI2 or GGWAW?

Post by sapper_astro »

If there is one thing that peeves me about WAW its the Western Allies 'Nation' and the European 'Axis' nation. From an AI standpoint i understand how this allows things to be more elegant, but nevertheless, it still shits me sometimes. The AI overall is fairly solid, though still runs on the railtracks a touch (haven't had a sealion launched against me in UK yet after several games as WA, even when i had NO troops in the UK). Good game for a quickie.

HOI2 has the opposite problem: The nations are brilliantly depicted and the detail is very absorbing, but AI can be a bastard when it comes to the WA coordinating offensives. They are getting markedly better though....The major, MAJOR flaw of HOI2 is its pacific campaign. The poor Japanese get their head handed to them very quickly almost every time. Playing them is a brilliant game, but the AI Japan needs some serious work....always a Paradox let down. Apart from that, the AI can be very, very good in mainland Europe.
mikwarleo
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:50 am

Problems with comparing HoI to WoW and reply to HoI's detractors

Post by mikwarleo »

Well this has turned into quite a post from me but seems I had something to say. [;)]

I think HoI (and HoI2) are brilliant games for many reasons. However, to compare HoI to WoW is a bit like comparing apples and oranges. Each are 'fruit' but basically speaking that's the end of the similarities. Likewise these two games share common subject matter but that's about it.

I would personally rate HoI2 above WoW but that is an emotional/personal decision and I think anyone who presents their position on this matter as anything else is well misguided. I want to make the point that the people who openly detract from HoI in this post, well, I think their claims are largely unfounded. They're being very unfair as if there was some fact of the matter when, to my mind, there clearly isn't (at least not in this context of relating the game to WoW). HoI is a large project, wonderfully detailed, historically accurate, informative and very fun.

But the fact it is so detailed and complex some people see as a flaw in the game. For example, the fact that it takes a long time to finish a game has been espoused as a flaw. Well, bah! A period of history that spanned 1936 to 1948 (IIRC is the HoI biggest GC) well you could reduce that down to a game consisting of a few hours and you end up with a game like WoW. Or a game that takes the better part of a week, like HoI. If you want the detail that's HoI. If you want to 'live' the game/war, that's HoI. If you want something comparatively more 'arcade style' go WoW. BUT, to say HoI is a better/worse game as a result of preferring a particular type of game is just plain wrong.

In HoI there are literlly hundreds of elements to consider and meddle or not meddle in if you want to. One of the great things about the game is there are auto controls for many of the more fiddly things like leader assignment. To reply to another post in this thread: if you find assigning leaders tiresome why not use the 'auto assign leader' feature instead of complaining about it as if this aspect made the game some kind of failure?!

But of course, HoI is not perfect, I could find many things I might change about it... but show me a game that is perfect!

If you really want to ask which is better you'd be better off noticing things like the fact that HoIs forums are comparatively more active, filled with more passionate content and have many more members that those of WoW. (Also the fact Paradox is *imho* comparatively more concerned with patching and updating and promoting a game community after release might rate a mention in any comparison. HOWEVER, Matrox seems to do very well in comparison to the unfortunate norm on this point too). AND YET, all in all, is forum participation really an indicator of which game is 'better'? Or better for you? Or whatever... No, clearly it is not. 

Now, I'm *not* detracting from WoW, at the same time I think WoW is a great game. It's just different. Again, there is no 'objective' comparison.  Any project whether it is as *intentionally* ambitious and grand-scale as HoI(2) or as (comparitively and *intentionally*) simple as WoW is going to have to make choices about how to engage its subject (in this case WW2). For example, something I *love* about HoI is you can start a campaign in 1936 and PREPARE for the outbreak of war giving you greatly increased access to WHAT-IF scenarios. Also there is a myriad of compaigns and operations which start at different times all the way up to the final moments of the war. By comparison WoW offers very limited options. Does this make WoW a better game, to my mind obviously not. Does it make it worse, well, NO (whether or not I might like the game to provide something it's not doesn't mean the game is lacking).

What I'm saying, to be more plain about it: games are always going to have 'problems' (limitations etc) modelling reality in gameplay. Because, of course, (duh) they are *games*. To my mind these two games have reached a certain abstract level where, while it might not be your particular cup of tea, both are great games for different reasons and fulfil their purpose. To say that one is better or worse than the other is only to state your own personal/emotional preferences. NO computer game can 'get it right' if that means accurately portraying something as intricate and complex as war or life, *especially* if you want it to do that inside a few hours. IMHO many of the people who point out so called 'problems' in WoW, HoI and many games forget that games are very limited simulations and have indemic 'problems' (for want of a better word -- of course they're not problems at all more like 'features').

Something to notice is that amazing stories from war abound (one para with 2 piat loads holding of german tanks, a 57mm AT gun killing a king tiger, Michael Wittman's performances are some I can think of off the top of my head) but when/if we see these kinds of things in our games we often cry foul. I find this all the time in a favourite game of mine: Close Combat Invasion Normandy (a truely great and unique game). I want to *know* my Tiger will beat that Sherman. And perhaps I am right to expect this but nonetheless amazing and unexpected things happen in war ALL THE TIME. "To a good general luck is important" -Livy [Rome TW players will be familiar with that quote ;)] How do you model this kind of *LUCK* in a game?! Don't we all hate it when we feel beaten by game that (in our opinion) misrepresents this element! What I mean is, we want to *know* when we'll win a fight, in WoW we expect our 8 infantry units to beat the 4 defending enemy (all things being equal). BUT in war you NEVER have the certainty many of us demand from these games!

The research element is a classic example of something that is imho impossible to accurately model because of the uncertainty and myriad of other elements involved. In WoW reasearch is so simplistic and unrealistic (much more so than HoI imho) yet no reasonable person complains about the WoW research model being inaccurate because we all accept *this is a game*, a certain kind of game. I think people often fail to apply that same thinking to other aspects of these and other games. I think the chess example is particularly good here: we don't complain about the rules/features of a *game* of chess ... while it *represents* medievil warefare it clearly has it's differences.

Where a game like WoW really shines, imho, is in the chess-like game play which lends itself to PBEM. Because of the comparitively short campaigns and easily accessible nature of this kind of multiplayer gaming it makes for a fun game that's enjoyable, accessible yet still very strategic. Well done. Though again to poo poo HoI because it is not this is to miss the point entirely. HoI is just plain brilliant precisely because of its mind bending detail that totally immerses you in the game experience. You end up feeling like a commander in cheif or whatever. And doesn't this make it more like the real thing?! ... whatever that means.

Concern with realism (being historical accuracy or any other kind) in these games is always going to be a trade off between a ton of things not least of which between making a 'game' with possibilities and access to what-ifs as opposed to making a history book which remakes actual events. Anyhow the whole point of this soapbox moment is to say that I think the detractors of HoI in this thread, insofar as they suggest HoI is in *fact* not a great game (rather than saying they personally don't like it) are, well, just plain dumb.

Finally I advise anyone who hasn't played it to go and get
CLOSE COMBAT INVASION NORMANY
A different game again, however imho better than both WoW and HoI (again emotional statement). I offer this recommendation because I'm amazed at the number of people who either have never heard of it or never tried it. You'll find it in the discount section of your local computer store these days for $10 or less. See www.closecombatseries.net for mods and other stuff. Most popular mod is GJS4.4. Once you get into it, I guarantee the online action in this game will not fail to disappoint. For me the grand campaigns are just amazing. The perfect blend of strategic and tactical action with a distinctly realistic *feel*.

[Edit - gramma and an afterthought or 2]
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Problems with comparing HoI to WoW and reply to HoI's detractors

Post by HansBolter »

While I have only played WaW a couple of times and have been playing HOI and HOI2 for some time, I have to agree that they are completely different games.

I liken WaW to the old Avalon Hill board game Hitler's War, a simplified, very large scale area movement game and liken HOI to Third Reich or European Theatre of Operations (ETO), both are much more detailed and complex games.

While I am a fanatic for historical detail, which HOI is replete with, I have a love/hate relationship with the game as the AI is pitiful and there seems to be a fundamental mechanics problem with trying to model grand startegic warfare with a game system with one hour turns. The lack of command delays alone at that scale are infuriating. You order a divsion to load on a ship and one hour later the ship is ready to sail, pretty damn silly if you ask me.
Hans

Harry
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Aachen, Germany

RE: Problems with comparing HoI to WoW and reply to HoI's detractors

Post by Harry »

HoI2 is a game with much more possibilities.
There are no artifical frozen countrys. So you can attack Poland with Russia in 36, or China, or whatever nation lies next to you. But be ready to face the consequencens.
In one game I played Germany and had a DOW by England and France in 1938. I did not expect this. I was playing over agressive and had to face the consequences. Very fun game.
aso.
You can replay history if you want or try change it (most will do) or disable all events and play it as a pure strategy game, but not so good in this setting. Try EUII with this - very much fun conquering the world--or not.
But, you have to invest a lot of time, much much more than WAW.
And I realy dislike the multiplayer part of HoI2. I think it is a pure singleplayer game, because you need sometimes a lot of time for your "move" especially when it started to get hot and in MP you dont have it.

WAW seems limited, but it offers a fast paced game that you can play like a chessgame and finish it in a reasonable time. And good muliplayer options. (Did not tried this yet)
I really like the time you can put into your moves. I discovered this after playing a few games lazily and was always very badly beaten.
WAW looks easy to play, but it isnt. You need a lot of thinking and thats good.
I think WAW strength is the MP part and the time investment.

So both games has their place and liked to be played. :)

As many others I have both WAW and HoI2.
ladner
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia USA

RE: Problems with comparing HoI to WoW and reply to HoI's detractors

Post by ladner »

Interesting thread, I am intrigued by, but have not played GGWaW.  I have played both HOI 1 and HOI 2, with HOI 2, being a much better product than HOI 1, although I am still put off by the air war aspects of the game.  HOI 2 definitely has a ton of detail, and the politics, foreign policy, and diplomacy options are better than any other game of this type.  I find it interesting how the sequel to GGWaW is trying to implement more of the features of HOI 2, and HOI Doomsday, in that it is adding features such as espoinage and spies.
 
In my own opinion both of these games offer a high level of abstraction, and HOI 2 is too abstract in terms of the weapons systems between the different combatants, granted it attempts to have the major powers operate in a differnt manner through the use of the various 'doctrine' technologies.  Of course GGWaW is a 'beer and pretzels' wargame, might I add there is nothing wrong with such games, I spent many an hour playing Panzer General and it's like.  Hearts of Iron, offers itself as a more serious wargame, but in my own mind certain elements of the engine which are derived from the Europa Universalis series of games are just not up to the task, in particular if one compares the game with something like War in the Pacific.
 
Having looked at the screenshots for GGWaW A World Divided, I like the interface, it is definitely a major improvement over UV and WiTP.  I see why they wish to use this engine as the basis for the next generation WiR game.
 
Having mentioned War in the Pacific it is in my hope that at one point Gary Grigsby and company will give the wargaming community a truly monsterous game, and provide a game with the type of detail of War in the Pacfic but set in grand strategic setting like GGWaW, were you have all of the combatants and the full globe.  I like how GGWaW has a production multiplier, as I have read more about the economics of WW2, this is a key issue and it shows how all of the Axis powers were flawed in that they though the superior matrial ethic, and prowness could overcome the material advantage of the Allies.  Once Japan and Germany, through the Munitions Ministry and the efforts of Albert Speer to rationalize industry it was too little to late.  Interestingly enough G. Fujihara upon inspecting the Japanese aviation industry noted that there was adequate capacity to build 53,000 aircraft, raw material to so; however, was a different matter.
 
The following passage is from Deist etal Germany and the Second World War, pp507
 
“The navy followed the same course as the Luftwaffe and insisted on independently carrying out its own measures. As chief of the navy command, Raeder sought and established contact with Hitler from the beginning in the interest of his own rearmament plans. At the end of June 1934 he bypassed Blomberg and obtained Hitler’s approval for important changes in the planning of ship construction. The net result of these developments was that Blomberg’s attempt as commander in chief of the Wehrmacht to organize and define the build up and expansion of the armed forces within the framework of his own authority failed as early as the autumn of 1934.”

“Blomberg’s difficult relation to Goering , who was far more powerful politically , is not in itself an adequate explanation of this failure. Next to the consolidation of the regime at home, rearmament was given absolute priority within the framework of Hitler’s policies, consequently , intervention on his part to achieve a coordinated rearmament of the Wehrmacht would certainly have been conceivable. But he did not intervene-quite the contrary…We can only observe that in this most important area for conduct of future wars, the Wehrmacht idea suffered its first and , in the final analysis, decisive defeat”
 
Few games, if any allow for the player to make the types of decisions with regards to industrial rationalization, that could have had a profound impact on extending the war.  One could argue, that HOI does this, with central planning - laissez faire slider, however the production in HOI is so abstracted, in that all factories are lumped together and produce anything, that in my own mind it is a moot point.
 
Anyhow, that is my $0.02 worth.  Probably my only hope of seeing such a project come to life would be to win the lottery and establish a gaming X-prize of a couple of million.  Sadly, my programming talents are too modest to under take such an abitious project on my own.

 
 
(1) J.B. Cohen Japan's Economy in War and Reconstruction Columbia University Press 1949.
mikwarleo
Posts: 70
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 3:50 am

RE: Problems with comparing HoI to WoW and reply to HoI's detractors

Post by mikwarleo »

Interesting [:)] I like the quote especially...

You could always spend the next few years studing game code and development to fulfil your dream.

Or construct a proper concept and pitch it... [;)]
ladner
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2001 4:00 pm
Location: Virginia USA

RE: Problems with comparing HoI to WoW and reply to HoI's detractors

Post by ladner »

Thanks for the reply. I have a ton of ideas, the difficult part is translating the ideas into a working design or concept. Right now I am primarily reading, and researching the economics of WW2. I will probably concentrate on a production and research and development model at some point.

One thing I have noticed in many of these games, and back when I used to play War in Russia, I was guilty of having factories produce all Fw-190s instead of Me-109s, since the Fw-190 was a better plane, at least in game statistic terms. In a lot of these games this type of thing occurs, for example if you are Britain, why bother with the Hurricane, when the Spitfire is so much better. Likewise why did the US continue with production of the P-40N, when the P-47 and the P-51 where much more capable aircraft in 1943. In reality there where many reasons for doing so, such as engine availability and product lines associated with a particular company not being readily convertible to another product without a major overhaul of the factory and capitol expenditure. Historically the Allies had a problem were the bulk ship building was tied to amphibous landing craft at the expense of ASW escorts, to combat the U-boat menance there was a switch to ASW escorts which resulted in a shortage of amphibous landing craft in 1944. Similarly the RAF had difficulties when swithcing aircraft demand to primarily fighters, then back to four engine heavy bombers.

One concept that I have been contemplating is having R&D tied to the amount of funding/production provided a certain company/manufacturer, in addition to 'technical grants' at the government level. Using the Luftwaffe as an example the grants would be R&D monies allocated to Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM) in a technical area, say jet propulsion. However, if someone opted for the all Fw-190 fighter force, Messerschmitt funding and consequently R&D would suffer, therefore, impacting the Me-262 program, however it could lead to the Ta-183 being fielded. Of course this concept could be extremely difficult to implement, not to mention, the difficult of finding out the costs of various programs. I have for example found a source that states that the B-29 project cost the US $3 billion, costing more than even the Manhattan project.
Post Reply

Return to “Gary Grigsby's World at War”