Unplayable?

[Rossj]

I think I'm a reasonably intelligent guy...I guess I thought wrong
I find the game mechanics and rules too complexed. I love WITP and other complexed games...many of them seem intuitive so you can spend most of your time coming up with strategies, not figuring out how to play it.
I'll stick to FORGE OF FREEDOM

[Gem35]

thanks for your post, but if you are having trouble there are plenty of folks willing to help you.
Have you played through the tutorials?
What specifically are you having trouble with?

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: Rossj

I think I'm a reasonably intelligent guy...I guess I thought wrong
I find the game mechanics and rules too complexed. I love WITP and other complexed games...many of them seem intuitive so you can spend most of your time coming up with strategies, not figuring out how to play it.
I'll stick to FORGE OF FREEDOM

Wow. FOF and WitP not hard compared to AACW? Wow. [&:] I find the interface easy in comparison to all other games.

[kokubokan25]

I'm very surprised also. WITP is level 10 complexity to me. ACW may be would be a single 6/7 compared.

[MrBoats]

I've found that with both WITP and AACW I've had to be patient about restarting campaigns when I realized I'd missed important components, due largely to diving in without reading the manuals more thoroughly. WITP is more unforgiving because of the lack of tooltips. But I "mastered" it after a while and I still play regularly after three years. I think the same will be true of AACW -- it seems like it has a huge replay value. And the pleasure of seeing a well-planned effort come to fruition is well worth the time spent.

[heroes99]

Well for me

WiTP - is the most comlex game for me and I will never learn and able to play

FOF - is not a very complex game , just that the interface is awkward and take times to figure it out , it put me off the first time and I am now revisitng before I deciede to get AACW

AACW - Only try the demo -  a bit more complex but the game interface is much easier , good tutorial ( use the pictorial tutorial  together , the ingame tutorial text not so good )

[carnifex]

I love WITP and other complexed games...many of them seem intuitive so you can spend most of your time coming up with strategies, not figuring out how to play it.

This is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on these forums. You're talking about WITP, right? The game where after how many years now and over 28 thousand threads and still no one can give a clear explanation on things like optimal bombing attitudes, HQ bonuses, Japanese production, or how to effectively load ground and air units on transports?

/chortle

[LarryP]

ORIGINAL: carnifex

I love WITP and other complexed games...many of them seem intuitive so you can spend most of your time coming up with strategies, not figuring out how to play it.

This is probably the funniest thing I've ever read on these forums. You're talking about WITP, right? The game where after how many years now and over 28 thousand threads and still no one can give a clear explanation on things like optimal bombing attitudes, HQ bonuses, Japanese production, or how to effectively load ground and air units on transports?

/chortle

You said it best! [;)]

[Gem35]

witP is an easy game to play, you just have to work at it, experiment and come up with your own style. The game mechanics can be difficult if you don't want to spend time to learn the game.
By far and wide, witp has given me the most for my money out of all the PC games I have ever played.
AACW is becoming one of those games as well.

[MrBoats]

I'll second Gem35's last post on both counts. WITP has earned it's price in the hours of good gameplay I've gotten out of it, and AACW is getting there. I think the key to both is getting an organized approach to the turns together and sticking to it. WITP can seem overwhelming, but once you've broken it down into a set of planning phases it's a heck of alot easier to handle. Of course, this is coming from a man who will spend 12 hours at a time playing it![:D]

[SittingDuck]

ORIGINAL: Rossj
I'll stick to FORGE OF FREEDOM

Perhaps you should, son. Perhaps you should.

[heroes99]

ORIGINAL: MrBoats

I'll second Gem35's last post on both counts. WITP has earned it's price in the hours of good gameplay I've gotten out of it, and AACW is getting there. I think the key to both is getting an organized approach to the turns together and sticking to it. WITP can seem overwhelming, but once you've broken it down into a set of planning phases it's a heck of alot easier to handle. Of course, this is coming from a man who will spend 12 hours at a time playing it![:D]

The MAIN difference between getting into WITP and AACW is the tutorial provided by AACW , it really help you to learn the basic of the game and I enjoy it very much

With WiTP , I really have no idea what to do but I will go for my third attempt to learn this game which has been with me for so many years

[chadandpia]

Heroes99,

If WiTP is too intense or complex, you can always get Uncommon Valour .. I think it's still just as intense and complex but a LOT more manageable since it's map is on a smaller scale.

WiTP is built off of it's engine so once you learn UV then WiTP will come easier to you and you can learn all of the other advanced goodies that WiTP provides that UV didn't have implemented in it. =)

[Gem35]

WitP has such a wide scope, there really is no right or wrong, black or white concrete "everyone has to play the game this way" approach.
It's up to you as commander in chief to decide what altitude your Bombers and Fighters fly at or what type and how many transports you use in an invasion. If you play the game you will know which to use and when. HQ units give bonuses based on their command radius. There are tons and tons of threads in that forum that answer all of your questions. If you still don't know, make a post and some of the veteran experts will gladly point you in the right direction.

WitP is the greatest pacific war game ever made and will be for years. You don't have to agree, we all have our opinions, but to say it's unplayable and as this AACW game has been tabbed as unplayable, most folks with some common sense can scoff at these claims.

Happy gaming everyone.[:)]

[General Quarters]

I played Uncommon Valor, which is sorta the baby-sized WitP. For a player who does not like too much detail, it was tedious, but nevertheless certainly playable, and everything was documented in the manual. It was a very carefully crafted game, hard to fault on its own terms. I would say the same about AACW.

[madgamer2]

You should like the game if you liked the demo at all. The game is much more suttle and you have more to deal with. I think that a lot of players have trouble with all the info and things you do each turn. To me it is sort of like facing the complex problems that were there when the war was fought.
one thing that I have never seen (correct me if I'm wrong) is that each save game can be set to go back a large number of turns by hitting the right button on the keyboard. What a neet feature.

Madgamer

[madgamer2]

BOY! Am I glad I read this! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. I never had the courage to admit it . In spite of what you say I STILL LOVE IT.

Madgamer

[decaro]

I'll admit up front that I don't play AACW or WitP, but I do own BoA and UV; the only thing these two games have in common is that they are both turn based. Aside from that, how could you possibly compare them?

Different wars, different tactics, different operational levels, etc. Besides, when was the last time you dragged and dropped an army in WitP?

[MrBoats]

AACW and WITP are similar in many ways. The complexity and depth of the games makes them both somewhat difficult to learn, but the rewards gained are well worth the effort. Of course the mechanics are different, but the necessity of keeping an eye on the logistics, strategy and command considerations is the same. It's just as satisfying in AACW to take a major Confederate city as it is in WITP to take Iwo Jima -- you know you've earned it.

[decaro]

OK, but complexity and depth are generalizations that could easilly be applied to many games. How exactly are these games alike?

Compare AI; BoA plays like a chess computer, but almost everyone plays UV/WitP PBEM. What does that tell you?

As for learning curve, it took much longer for me to "master" UV than BoA, even though AGEOD immediately produced a series of patches after BoA's release that completely changed its logistics (v1.12/1.12a), compelling me to relearn BoA several times over. Still, BoA/AACW is still much less confusing/frustrating than UV/WitP, at least according to the player posts in their forums.

But if you don't buy that, just compare these game's manuals; hard copies vs. (lengthy) pdfs!

And aside from the software, AGEOD -- a relatively new company -- responds quickly to game questions, which is more than I can say for Matrix; it's rare when Wood et al grace the UV/WiTP forums, whereas POCUS seems almost omnipresent by comparison.