I was not going to buy this but

[Numdydar]

I did. Physical version too. What can I say I am a sucker for manuals [:D] Too much time in service/working DoD I guess [:(]

I was not going to buy it at all since some of the major features I want to see in games like this are missing. Like
Production cannot be changed by a player. At least Japan has that capacity in WitP.
No chance to change deployments, i.e. where units start
Also forced to follow historical directives

Since I have bought it, I have been playing around with the game and I have to say the changes from WitE are amazing. The main reason I changed my mind purchased it was simply for the way WitW handles the air war. Brilliantly done imho.

Plus depots, realistic RR capacity, etc. really pushed me to buy. As it is very obvious that 2by3 listened to the people about WitE and made these really amazing changes to the system. If they take the systems here and add them to WitE 2.0 that will definitely be another day 1 purchase for me [:)]

I understand people's reluctance to buy. But comparing this to WitP, which the AE version has been out for 6 YEARS is not fair (and is still being patched [X(]). Nor is it fair to compare it to MWiF as that is done by just 1 person which has nothing to do with 2by3. Comparing this to WitE IS a fair comparison.

But I would take into consideration that a) it is obvious that 2by3 listened to the issues found in WitE and b) have addressed then in WitW. Plus is still patching WitE to further address the issue there.

As far as I am concerned if you can afford it you should get it. From one 'not buying it' to another [:)]

[aaatoysandmore]

All games can be compared to each other and it's "fair". As long as the comparisons are equal. Like how much "fun" is it playing this game than another of it's type. That's a fair comparison. Then we have how much did it challenge me vs the other game of its type. That's a fair comparison. Comparing just the "entertainment" value of the two games is a fair comparison. So, there are many things that are "fair" to compare two games by than just who made it how it was made and the mechanics of the two games.

I always compare on Fun, Entertainment, how long the game entertains me, overall longevity of the game and how well did it challenge "me". Too many try to make out like if they got challenge everyone should have gotten challenge. Everyone plays differently there so that is not a fair comparison. Also the detail and complexity of the game have to do with my comparisons. Which one satisfies my wargaming hunger with the least detail an complexity. That's what I look for in wargames. Probably why I don't have WitPAE edition or those other monster games.

In all fairness this is a monster game that has tweaked my interest though in a more detailed an complex game. But, as for World in Flames (no ai you have got to be kidding me?), War in the East, War in the Pacific AE version I would and won't ever purchase those unless they drop below $10. As I would only get them for collectors reasons alone.

My 2cent comparison. [:'(]

[Erik Rutins]

Thank you for the feedback Numdydar and very glad that you are enjoying the game!

While you can't change initial deployments, you can pretty much do whatever you want in the game once it starts. You do not have to follow the historical plans and timetable, as long as within the realistic system we have setup you can get the supplies and units where you want them to go.

[zakblood]

if you use the editor and alter it, you can make your own initial deployments

if the main game files and scenarios can be edited that is?

[;)]

[RedLancer]

You can amend initial deployments and add new units - a full editor manual is included. 
 
If you have a thumbnail viewer that supports tga files the DAT/ART/SYM folder is worth a browse.  I'm pretty sure I added in all the insignia of major British formations even if they weren't in game - you never quite know when you may want them.

[zakblood]

oh yes, so true[:D][;)]

let the editing begin[&o][&o][&o]