Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> AAR >> RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/9/2021 6:15:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 44734
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
What????

The game said 0 turns to go... but has continued..... The US destroy the remaining IJN and land en masse in Japan... Seems the US have another turn.

Sorry no screen shot - I thought the game was over and that was what 0 turns remaining meant...

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 331
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/10/2021 6:13:50 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 44734
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
August 1945 - end of game

And so the Allies take their final shots at the remaining Japanese. These were the only holdings still in Japanese hands at the end of the game.

Japan/Korea/Okinawa




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/10/2021 6:14:13 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 332
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/10/2021 6:14:52 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 44734
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
August 1945 - end of game

China/FIC




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 333
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/10/2021 6:15:35 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 44734
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
August 1945 - end of game

Southeast Asia




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 334
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/10/2021 6:16:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 44734
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
August 1945 - end of game

And finally the butcher's bill - Major Allied Victory

Well done AllenK.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 335
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/14/2021 5:13:54 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7231
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline
The View from the Other Side of the Hill II.

Again, thanks to Warspite1 for a very entertaining game.

As Axis, Warspite1 had the right idea when he just kept pushing. It nearly succeeded everywhere. USSR had to go to war with Japan to save China as Warspite1 was doing well there. That weakened the Soviets in Europe and the Germans were at the gates of both Leningrad and Moscow in '43 before the weather and events in Belgium turned the tide. In the south, they were pushing ever deeper against next to no opposition as my MPP's couldn't cover my losses, let alone build new units.

This, while giving the Allies a right bloody nose in Burma. Great sport.

Teeing up my European invasion and then having it rain for two turns, grounding the air power on which it depended, was a tense time. I was praying there were nothing significant that could be thrown at the vulnerable AV's. All the while seeing USSR getting a hammering and Leningrad and Moscow looking rather vulnerable. The only consolation was seeing the German armour getting weaker and being able to take a couple out with desperate counter-attacks.

However, the weather lifted in the nick of time and the invasion went very well. This is the first game I've really invested in Allied air power and I think it paid off. A real combined arms effort.

By attacking harder and longer, destroying more Chinese units in the process, Warspite1's Japanese defence was better than mine, particularly as he was still pushing in Burma and making recapturing the islands and Philippines as drwan out as possible. Well played.


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 336
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/21/2021 9:41:13 AM   
Shellshock


Posts: 527
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
Hi. Since you two were veteran contributors on the War in Flames sub-forum, I was curious to know how you think this version of Strategic Command compares to ADW's classic global WWII game?

(in reply to AllenK)
Post #: 337
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/22/2021 5:00:11 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 44734
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shellshock

Hi. Since you two were veteran contributors on the War in Flames sub-forum, I was curious to know how you think this version of Strategic Command compares to ADW's classic global WWII game?

warspite1

Hi Shellshock

I assume you are referring to ADG and World in Flames (WIF)?

If so then I would say these are two very different – and in their own way rewarding - gaming experiences. There are two things: the actual game itself and also the practicalities of playing the game.

I’ll start with WIF

I first played WIF (the board game) in the mid-90’s and I have considered WIF the very best war game I’ve played ever since. When I saw the computer game being made by Matrix I jumped at the chance at getting involved.

WIF is fun, colourful and challenging. Aesthetically the computer game is better than the board game as the one thing that let down the board game – the maps – has been improved immeasurably. The counters are works of art (depending on personal taste obviously). For me, whether to use NATO counters for land units is simply not something that is up for debate; NATO counters are a must – and WIF uses these. Every power – major or minor – has its own distinct colour scheme (anyone remember AH 3rd Reich and their dull buff counters for all minors and insipid major power counter colours?). The aircraft counters provide a player with a full colour outline of every aircraft (and many what-ifs) that appeared in WWII. Then there are the ships….. for someone with a keen interest in the naval side of WWII, ADG went above and beyond when they brought out Ships in Flames just as I was starting my WIF journey. Here is a strategic level game about WWII and yet I get to play with just about every ship (and many what-ifs) from light cruiser upwards – and again these are presented (as can be seen to the left) with a beautiful silhouette. That’s mad.

When I say the game is challenging, I mean immensely challenging. A player has to think many moves ahead and constantly be able to react to opportunities and threats - like SCWAW. But there are no random events that pop up – every action involves a player planning the movement of units from place to place.

The dice can be kind or they can be vicious and unforgiving. The game mechanics mean that little, if anything, is ever guaranteed. For example, what units a major power starts with is never guaranteed to be the same, starting positions are not fixed. These features, along with the way turn initiative, weather, the type of action taken and turn length interact, all make for a game with unlimited re-playability.

The game has a few basic rules set in stone that provide the framework that makes every game of WIF feel like a WWII game – even if going outside of history e.g. invading Spain or Sweden. Playing with oil is a must in my opinion, as this just adds to the WWII ‘experience’.

There is no diplomatic shenanigans as such to get countries to join forces. Diplomacy revolves around the US entry chart. Each power must be careful in the actions they take as it may effect (positively or negatively) the opinion of US Congress and thus the speed with which the US enters the war.

The counter-mix and rules means that the owner of a major power will be faced with the problems and opportunities faced by that power. That said, WIF is unashamedly a game made so that either side can win. That means that there are some liberties taken with counter values and OOB. After all, in any WWII game, a real life Japanese OOB is not going to be much fun for the Japanese player…..

The game is a time vampire. It makes me chuckle when people hear that it has just 36 turns and are put off by how short it is….. Er no, a turn can be short (typically in winter and/or when someone gets lucky with ending the turn) but equally a turn can last for ever!

As a game, perhaps WIF’s greatest strength can also be its biggest downside. Ultimately, for all the planning, all the hard work that goes into creating a strategy and executing a plan, if the dice are not going to play ball it can bring a game to a premature end very quickly.

Strategic Command: World at War

I will say less on this as I assume anyone reading this here will be acquainted with the game. A lot of the plusses with WIF are present here too. The game gives a choice between NATO and sprites which is a nice touch. The counters are more generic though. Maybe could do with some love from a colour perspective? But that is personal taste. I would say the same applies to the maps. Some attention could be paid here. For example, when island hopping I often found it a pain to know which territory belonged to who. To my mind this should be identifiable at-a-glance.

I like the combat mechanics with the possible outcome advised in advance. After some pretty hideous games of WIF (from a dice perspective) it was nice to play a game that felt less in the hands of the dice gods (of course I wouldn’t feel that way if the dice had worked) and I really like this feature of SCWAW. I can’t say too much on game balance as I sucked at the game whichever side I played.

The naval side is both more and less appealing than WIF. Less because there is not the same attention to detail (each individual ship) that WIF has, but more because I really quite like the naval rules in SCWAW. I have had many an exciting battle during my games with Fog of War adding that real element of the unknown, and the weather often playing a part too. Neither game is perfect when it comes to the naval war, but both games make a pretty good stab at it.

Like with WIF, SCWAW is a strategic game that allows playing of the whole war – and that is a big plus for me. At the same time both have a WWII ‘feel’ regardless of what tangent a player goes off on relative to real life.

I think there is more possibility for bringing in countries with SCWAW thanks to the diplomatic manoeuvrings. This is a good thing from a replayability perspective, although I must confess I never spent a single DM, Dollar, Sterling or Yen to try and persuade anyone. I could never afford the cost!

SCWAW has research and upgrading of units which WIF doesn't. WIF increases the values of the new additions to the OOB instead e.g. an Me-262 counter appearing in 1944 and older aircraft no longer produced. This need to keep ahead of research in SCWAW is another nice addition as it gives a player more to think about than just the fighting.

One very big difference between the two games are the decision events. These are not a feature of WIF, where a player has to move units manually – no sudden appearance in the desert or Norway or whatever. I think at their best the decision events are an excellent game feature. It’s something different – like the cards in Decisive Campaigns – and after getting used to the concept it was fine. The only issue I have is that some don’t need to be there – there is simply no ‘decision’ to be made (Soviet winter preparations) or there is no decision to be made as the downside of one outweighs so much the upside of another (Indian entry). Most though work really well.

Which is better?

I think there are plusses and negatives to both. I thoroughly enjoyed SCWAW and would recommend this to anyone that wants to play a strategic WWII game. Will I go back to it? Well if I don’t that is no criticism of the game – after all my MO has been to buy a game, really get into it, play it until I’m happy that I’ve done what I can and then move on. I’ve done that with many Matrix titles. The one game I haven’t done that with? WIF. Despite what I write below I always go back to this monster as there is something insanely addictive about it. Perhaps that answers the question?

Practicalities

Those who have been around the WIF forum since it was released, know that the game still has issues (to a greater or lesser extent). One of the things that brought me back to SCWAW was that I had been suffering some frustrations with WIF that meant the fun playing the game was being overtaken by some problems – particularly with production at the end of a turn.

What I absolutely loved about SCWAW is that here is a game that is pretty much stable. It is not temperamental, I don’t play a turn and then hope at the end of it that I am not going to run into problems that take time to fix, but instead I play my turn, I wrap it up and send it back and….. it works! I think I had one crash during the games and that was probably caused by my computer not the game.

My 2 cents

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 5/22/2021 5:19:19 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 338
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/22/2021 8:20:45 AM   
Shellshock


Posts: 527
Joined: 12/31/2010
From: U.S.
Status: offline
Warspite, thanks for the well thought out and detailed response. Good reading.

Yeah, the original boardgame World in Flames is from the Australian Design Group. (ADG) Somehow I remembered it as Australian Design Workshop (ADW). My brain must be fogging over. However, I was meaning the Matrix port of the game in particular.

Yes, it's a disappointment that years after it's 2014 release, that Matrix's WiF is still a work in progress as best. I tried tinkering with it for years, but was put off by a lot of nagging issues. Not least the persistent problem with consistently convoying resource A to factory B. Very important for an oceanic empire like Britain. The game has a lot of visual appeal, for certain with the jazzy ship and plane silhouettes. I always liked the mix of sea area mechanics for naval units and hexes for land units. It is a very dice dependent game (you literally roll computer dice) especially when it came to the weather which could often stop an offensive in its tracks if I recall. People who gripe about weather in Strategic Command would probably be shocked to see what bad weather can do in World in Flames where it literally shortens the turn length.

As a computer game, Strategic Command is definitely the more polished product at this point. Easier to learn, fully functional and with a working AI. There are some graphic nice mods if really you want the ship silhouettes, but they are limited by the counter mix. One British battleship silhouette with have to stand in for all classes of British battleship. The research and decision events mechanism is almost a game in it's own right. Like you said though, some decisions are no-brainers. However, World in Flames mechanism of adding counters with improved numbers to your force pool each year and the scrapping of older counters was certainly an unique take on showing the changing nature of WW2 warfare.

I'm certainly glad this version of Strategic Command came along to scratch that particular itch of playing WW2 at the planetary level. However, if World in Flames ever got its promised AI up and running, I'd certainly dust off my copy and tinker again. That said, Wif would be a real tough if not impossible game to PBEM. Phase after phase with player decision after player counter-decision for each.

Thanks again.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 339
RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign - 5/24/2021 9:41:25 PM   
AllenK


Posts: 7231
Joined: 2/17/2014
From: England
Status: offline
Can't add much more than Warspite1's excellent critique.

PBEM is certainly doable in MWiF, as the various AAR's show. It is the best and currently most reliable way of playing since you are using solitaire mode, rather than Netplay. Since Netplay is limited to two players, the PBEM method, pioneered through the various AAR's, is the only way to recreate the team play aspect of the original board game. I think an AI opponent will always be a poor second but will have its uses to learn the game mechanics whilst still providing a bit of a challenge.

MWiF is very much slower paced than SC:WaW but it makes it potentially a much more sociable game due to all the player interaction needed. In SC:WaW you swap turns via the server and could play through a whole game without any dialogue with your opponent throughout.

Production in MWiF is a 'labour of love'. SC:WaW is much slicker but doesn't include oil, which was a crucial factor in WW2. The War Plan series does include oil but doesn't yet have a Global War variant. This is under development as War Plan 2 and, if the first two are anything to go by, could be a serious contender.

The main problem with MWiF is the Axis player needs a reasonable run of the dice at the start. I've seen too many games where, due to a poor run, it's effectively game over in 1940. In a fast playing game that wouldn't be a problem as you simply restart but in MWiF there will already have been a considerable amount of time and effort invested. The vagaries of chance have their place but at the same time there is the old Gary Player quote "The harder I practice, the luckier I get". If the outcome is more dependent on luck than strategy, planning and skill in execution, then you might as well simply flip a coin to determine the result.

< Message edited by AllenK -- 5/25/2021 6:50:24 PM >

(in reply to Shellshock)
Post #: 340
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Strategic Command Series >> Strategic Command WWII: World at War >> AAR >> RE: 2 warspite1 (Axis) vs AllenK (Allies) Full Campaign Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.250