Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

honest evaluation of the game

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> honest evaluation of the game Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 4:03:39 AM   
guestman

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/9/2005
Status: offline
There are some good things and some bad things regarding this game. On the good side, many of the complex calculations, whether for combat calcs or supply issues is dealt behind the scenes - letting the player focus primarily on the game. Another good thing is that it tries to be realistic, has plentiful number of units and territories to occupy, and can be finished in one night.

That said, there are some substantial drawbacks to this game - which in hindsight make me question the logic of buying this game. The primary issue with this game is that it makes several key units worthless to buy, and is greatly unbalanced. For example, buying factories for the axis is worthless, as even if they had tons of resources - the pop levels are so ridiculously low that they couldnt use those resources to build more units. Kind of defeats the point of going to war doesn't it? I just finished a game as japan having conquered all of the pacific and russia, had tremendous amounts of resources, and it just sat there because I couldn't do anything with it. Some people say that the occupied nations wouldn't co-operate, and so the total lack of pop benefits from conquering a nation is justified. But as a historian - I can say that this is not the case. Slave labour camps, duration of occupation, the appearance of being on the winning side, not to mention liberation from a european colonial power would allow for some of the population to support the occupiers. And this doesn't just apply to the modern period - remember the mongol empire was conquered thanks mostly to the soldiers and labourers of defeated nations! Partisans are way over powered in this game - this should be toned down. Why is it that if Germany is captured - the totality of the rest of its provinces go suddenly quiet, but when China is completely overrun, the partisans increase in strength (even with proper garrisons).

Carriers are useless in this game - so is airpower. it dies way too easily....no matter what the research was.

Thirdly, the axis powers should have their research levels bumped up. I find it hard to believe that within a few years - the allies have caught up to or exceeded the germans in this department or sub tech with the japanese!

Lastly, why give the japanese in Manchuria if it can't even produce anything but supply or research!!!! Considering that Japanese had been in the Manchuria/northern china for several decades, it seems ridiculous that they cannot build even militia out of it.


Post #: 1
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 5:14:59 AM   
aletoledo


Posts: 827
Joined: 2/4/2005
Status: offline
where-as I partially agree with you on being able to build more than just supplies and research in manchuria and some other locations, I disagree with your historic perspectives.

quote:

the pop levels are so ridiculously low that they couldnt use those resources to build more units. Kind of defeats the point of going to war doesn't it?
they didn't go to war for population, but for resources. if you've gotten to the point of having so many resources as axis, there is a good chance you've scored an autovictory.

quote:

Some people say that the occupied nations wouldn't co-operate, and so the total lack of pop benefits from conquering a nation is justified. But as a historian - I can say that this is not the case. Slave labour camps, duration of occupation, the appearance of being on the winning side, not to mention liberation from a european colonial power would allow for some of the population to support the occupiers.
the nations that supported the axis are indeed represented for being release from imperial rule. indochina is a great japanese example, no garrison needed there. slave labor or a willing population can be presumed from the rail and resources in each province. 2-3 years isn't long enough for any population to turn loyalist to any conquering nation, even in moderm times.

quote:


Carriers are useless in this game - so is airpower. it dies way too easily....no matter what the research was.
I've had the opposite experience. as russian, I hardly scratch the german air force. as japanese, my carriers (with careful planning) decimate the AI controlled carriers.

I get the impression that you're looking mostly to have a bunch of units on the board, mass them together and charge the enemy (basically a RTS). perhaps plan ahead and lure your enemy into traps or focus more on strategic objectives rather than tactical victory between units.

I do however agree with you that some places you should be able to build a factory if you'd like to from scratch (like indochina).

(in reply to guestman)
Post #: 2
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 5:27:37 AM   
a19999577

 

Posts: 118
Joined: 3/31/2004
From: Lima, Peru
Status: offline
quote:


Considering that Japanese had been in the Manchuria/northern china for several decades, it seems ridiculous that they cannot build even militia out of it.


Several decades? Manchuria was invaded in 1931, wasn't it? That wouldn't make it even a single decade by 1940, when the game begins.

(in reply to guestman)
Post #: 3
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 6:30:21 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5786
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
I think the population limits are perhaps a tad too tight, but I don't think the designers have made an unreasonable choice. You can use captured factories to make supply and research -- just not your own units. Well, in WW2, the Germans behaved in roughly this way. They did try to form infantry units out of the population of occupied territory, but these efforts were not very successful.

Likewise, the Japanese may have extracted oil from places like Palembang and Balikpapan, but they didn't fill significant numbers of infantry with the population from occupied territory. Nor did the USA or Britain.

(in reply to a19999577)
Post #: 4
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 8:33:01 AM   
lukus

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/9/2005
Status: offline
I agree, population limits make it kinda not fun to play. toward the end of 44, the remainder of the game for me was fighting partisans constantly (again, another no fun, maybe realistic, but totally non fun). But with the population limits, I was never able to build sufficient garrisons to really combat them effectively.


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 5
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 8:42:52 AM   
reznap

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
quote:

For example, buying factories for the axis is worthless


This is not the case, since the more factories you have, the closer will you be to Auto Victory in the middle game.

Also, each factory will give you the benefit of producing research/supply. With enough supply & advanced technology, you don't even need THAT many troops in order to win. So you won't have to squeeze your population to a breaking point.

My own complain to WaW is the AI. It's both weak & somewhat scripted (it always tries to land on Southern Italy after 1943, but never tries to take Norway).

(in reply to guestman)
Post #: 6
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 9:43:13 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 29194
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Are you using your minor allies (Rumania and Italy) to build militia? These make great partisan fighters. Never tie down good German infantry when you could be using militia from the minor allies. And never waste your German population on militia.

(in reply to lukus)
Post #: 7
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 9:49:14 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 29194
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: online
Between repairing captured factories and the automatic increase in production multipliers, it's true that factories are not the critical issue in most cases. Resource centers are usually more important. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have factories as an option because there are some strategies and situations that could use a few factories. In GGWaW we try to give you a lot of choices. Not all make sense, but we think it adds to the variety of gameplay.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 8
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 9:53:44 AM   
Pocus


Posts: 998
Joined: 9/22/2004
Status: offline
I'm wondering too why factories get an increase in efficiency automatically. Why not reduce the factory cost (down to 3 turns) and let the players buy by themselves factories to rise the output?
Thats would make for an interesting mod, but is the IA coded to construct factories when there is a big gap between the resources accumulated and the factories that can use them?

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 9
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 2:49:26 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577
quote:


Considering that Japanese had been in the Manchuria/northern china for several decades, it seems ridiculous that they cannot build even militia out of it.

Several decades? Manchuria was invaded in 1931, wasn't it? That wouldn't make it even a single decade by 1940, when the game begins.

The Japanese had established economic interests in Manchuria in 1916. When they invaded Manchuria in 1931, they could have been viewed as helping to stabilize the province by eliminating the warlords ... something that the Chinese government in Nanking was too weak to do at the time.

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to a19999577)
Post #: 10
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 3:23:53 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577
quote:


Considering that Japanese had been in the Manchuria/northern china for several decades, it seems ridiculous that they cannot build even militia out of it.

Several decades? Manchuria was invaded in 1931, wasn't it? That wouldn't make it even a single decade by 1940, when the game begins.

The Japanese had established economic interests in Manchuria in 1916. When they invaded Manchuria in 1931, they could have been viewed as helping to stabilize the province by eliminating the warlords ... something that the Chinese government in Nanking was too weak to do at the time.


Yes, but original poster argues that Japanese should be able to build militia units there. I don't think so. There were some puppet forces in Manchuria (and elsewhere in China) but they are outside of the scope of this game.

I think Manchuria is well done as it is - some resources, and ability to produce supplies - which is exactly what Japan needs. Military units should be produced on Home islands.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 11
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 3:39:29 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: guestman

That said, there are some substantial drawbacks to this game - which in hindsight make me question the logic of buying this game. The primary issue with this game is that it makes several key units worthless to buy, and is greatly unbalanced. For example, buying factories for the axis is worthless, as even if they had tons of resources - the pop levels are so ridiculously low that they couldnt use those resources to build more units. Kind of defeats the point of going to war doesn't it?


Point of going to war is not to "build more units", point is to defeat the enemy. In fact, it could be even argued that the point is exactly the opposite - to build as little units as possible (and still win the war). Germany, and other countries, didn't have bottomless population reserves, and this game simulates this excellently I think. By 45, Hitler could not put any new units on the frontlines, so he resorted to Volkssturm, recruiting middle aged men and boys, unsuited for military service.

This is not a game where you can produce dozens of units per turn, disregarding the fact that your country has limited population pool to draw new recruits from.

Yes, population limits can be pain (I will readily admit this is part of the production process I was slow to understand and master as well).

As for units being unbalanced - hey, nobody said you have to build them all or research every factor of every unit. Find what suits you best and stick with it.

quote:

Some people say that the occupied nations wouldn't co-operate, and so the total lack of pop benefits from conquering a nation is justified. But as a historian - I can say that this is not the case. Slave labour camps, duration of occupation, the appearance of being on the winning side, not to mention liberation from a european colonial power would allow for some of the population to support the occupiers.


Well *some* population does indeed support the occupiers, so you can make captured factories work and produce something, like supplies.

quote:

Partisans are way over powered in this game - this should be toned down. Why is it that if Germany is captured - the totality of the rest of its provinces go suddenly quiet, but when China is completely overrun, the partisans increase in strength (even with proper garrisons).


You need to garrison AND supply the province and you won't have any problems with partisans.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to guestman)
Post #: 12
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 6:37:14 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello
quote:

ORIGINAL: a19999577
quote:


Considering that Japanese had been in the Manchuria/northern china for several decades, it seems ridiculous that they cannot build even militia out of it.

Several decades? Manchuria was invaded in 1931, wasn't it? That wouldn't make it even a single decade by 1940, when the game begins.

The Japanese had established economic interests in Manchuria in 1916. When they invaded Manchuria in 1931, they could have been viewed as helping to stabilize the province by eliminating the warlords ... something that the Chinese government in Nanking was too weak to do at the time.


Yes, but original poster argues that Japanese should be able to build militia units there. I don't think so. There were some puppet forces in Manchuria (and elsewhere in China) but they are outside of the scope of this game.

I think Manchuria is well done as it is - some resources, and ability to produce supplies - which is exactly what Japan needs. Military units should be produced on Home islands.

O.

I agree that Manchuria shouldn't have militia for two reasons: a) the IJA never recruited outside of Japan, and b) their reputation by 1940 was not flattering, to say the least.

In 1931, however, they had a reasonably good international reputation and their invasion of Manchuria was seen as an attempt to protect their economic interests ... something that the Western Powers accepted.

The original poster could make a leap of faith that two decades of Japanese goodwill would be enough to counter the reputation earned from the Rape of Nanking. I don't buy it myself, since I would need to see some evidence that Manchurians welcomed the Japanese occupation prior to the Marco Polo Bridge incident.

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 13
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 8:49:26 PM   
reznap

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
This view is wrong since when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, Manchuria had ALREADY been united under a warlord faction leaded by Gen. Zhang. And in 1930 Gen. Zhang voluntarily accepted Nanking government as the central government and was appointed to a position (only second to the Nanking leader Kiang) in the central government.

Also, by the time Japan invaded Manchuria, Manchuria was the most industrialized region in China. It also had the best weapon industry & best air force in China.

So there's no such thing as Japanese's "helping to stabilize the province by eliminating the warlords" in manchuria when it invaded there.



[[/quote]
The Japanese had established economic interests in Manchuria in 1916. When they invaded Manchuria in 1931, they could have been viewed as helping to stabilize the province by eliminating the warlords ... something that the Chinese government in Nanking was too weak to do at the time.

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 14
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 9:02:42 PM   
reznap

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
historically IJA recruited from Taiwan but not from Manchuria.

However, Japanese DID recruit millions of local militias there (treated as the Manchurian national army) to help suppress the partisans and maintain "law & order".

After japanese surrender,most of the local Manchuria militias are recruited by communist army & that's part of the reason why communists can mass a million man & took Manchuria after only 3 years (from there they tookover the whole China).

Without Japanese invasion to China, communists would never be able to take over there.

[/quote]
I agree that Manchuria shouldn't have militia for two reasons: a) the IJA never recruited outside of Japan, and b) their reputation by 1940 was not flattering, to say the least.

In 1931, however, they had a reasonably good international reputation and their invasion of Manchuria was seen as an attempt to protect their economic interests ... something that the Western Powers accepted.

The original poster could make a leap of faith that two decades of Japanese goodwill would be enough to counter the reputation earned from the Rape of Nanking. I don't buy it myself, since I would need to see some evidence that Manchurians welcomed the Japanese occupation prior to the Marco Polo Bridge incident.
[/quote]

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 15
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/9/2005 9:35:57 PM   
reznap

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Actually the national League condemned Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1932 or 1933. And Japan quitted from National League just because of this international action.

Of course Western Powers did nothing to punish Japan then. But that's not because they "accepted"the Japanese reason of "protect their economic interests" (what a nonsense of that). Western Power never did anything to stop Hitler or Japan, not because they accepted the evil countries'"reasons", but bacause they just lacked the foresight and determination to stop international aggression.



[quote/]In 1931, however, they had a reasonably good international reputation and their invasion of Manchuria was seen as an attempt to protect their economic interests ... something that the Western Powers accepted. [/quote]

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 16
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 1:03:16 AM   
Gullet

 

Posts: 29
Joined: 2/17/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: reznap

Actually the national League condemned Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1932 or 1933. And Japan quitted from National League just because of this international action.


National League, is it a pre WW2 football association? I always thought it was League of Nations...



(in reply to reznap)
Post #: 17
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 1:27:20 AM   
reznap

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline
Whatever. This name was only a joke and didn't worth to remember


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gullet

quote:

ORIGINAL: reznap

Actually the national League condemned Japanese occupation of Manchuria in 1932 or 1933. And Japan quitted from National League just because of this international action.


National League, is it a pre WW2 football association? I always thought it was League of Nations...





(in reply to Gullet)
Post #: 18
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 3:23:19 AM   
Rounder2

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/7/2005
Status: offline
Some valid criticisms.

<removed due to content on illegal sharing of software>

First warning, Rounder2. Please do not post this information again.

< Message edited by Erik Rutins -- 4/10/2005 6:44:43 AM >

(in reply to guestman)
Post #: 19
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 4:31:16 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
Unless I misinterpreted the following paragraphs, it does seem that, at least until October (possibly November), the Western Powers accepted Japan's reason for invading Manchuria ... to protect its economic interests. Only when the Japanese not only failed to return to status quo, but expanded their territorial conquests, did the Western Powers recognize that it was not about the treaty.

From Arnold Offner's The Origins of the Second World War pp 96-98:

"Japan's stake in this region, rich in timber, coal, gold, iron, soybeans, and grains, was enormous, and for reasons of national interest and prestige no government in Tokyo would relinquish Japan's holdings or claims to special status in Manchuria. Throughout the 1920's, civil officials had sought to avoid the overt use of force and to protect Japan's Manchurian stake through multilateral agreements with other Great Powers or bilateral negotiations with the Chinese. By the end of the decade, however, Japan's Manchurian -- or Kwantung -- Army and South Manchurian Railroad and territorial officials constituted an entrenched bureaucracy, with a life and commitment of its own. [Offner then talks about their paranoia of Chinese Nationalism, Russian incursions, and foreign competition. Later he discusses the emergence of the Army as a major political force in Tokyo].

Sino-Japanese relations seriously deteriorated during 1928-31, as the Kuomintang sought to end extraterritoriality, built railway lines in Manchuria to compete with the Japanese-owned South Manchurian Railroad, harassed Japanese and Korean citizens in Manchuria, and boycotted Japanese goods. In those three years, there were some 120 cases of alleged Chinese violations of Japanese rights and interests in Manchuria, ranging from excessive taxation to infringement on property rights and unlawful detention. The Japanese concluded that the Chinese intended to force them to abandon their special status in Manchuria, and in the spring and summer of 1931 conditions reached the flash point, first, when Chinese peasants destroyed part of the work of a Korean rice-cultivating community, and, later, when Chinese troops apparently captured and shot a Japanese intelligence officer.

Key military officials in Manchuria and in Japan agreed to act. [there were some discussions about when to act and whether to wait for a coup d'etat in Tokyo first. Then the invasion occurred] Chang Kai-shek ordered a strict policy of nonresistance and appealed to the League of Nations. Foreign response was again tepid. Western nations admired neither the Chinese Nationalist challenge to the treaty system nor Chinese weakness and inability to resist the Japanese, whose mirroring of Western strength and purpose inspired resentment yet admiration.

Manchuria was "a long way off" as French Premier Andre Tardieu said, and his country's primary concern were its investments in Yunnan province in south China and Indo-China. The primary concerns of the British in the Far East were their investments in China proper, from Peking south to Canton and the Crown Colony of Hong Kong. Throughout the Manchurian crisis (and after), the British aimed, as Foreign Secretary John Simon noted at a Cabinet meeting on November 11, 1931, to be "conciliatory" toward Japan, against which "we don't want to apply sanctions", while the Chinese would be told not to rely on others but to play their part and to avoid seeking sanctions under Article XVI of the League Covenant.

American views of the crisis were similar to those of other foreign observers. Nelson Johnson, now minister to China, viewed Japan's military action as a premeditated "aggressive act", but even after the total occupation of Manchuria in January 1932 he felt that Chinese revocation of treaty rights had provoked it all. Japan's error was tactical: that is, instead of using force instead of seeking legal redress through the International Court at The Hague. Above all, Johnson felt that Congress and public opinion should not and would not approve any sanctions, which would only wreck the Japanese economy to the detriment of American trade, while creating revolutionary conditions in Japan."

From Akira Iriye's The Origins of the Second World War in Asia and The Pacific pp 12-13:

[a few paragraphs about internationalism, which was at the verge of collapse at this time] Although the United States was not a member of the League of Nations, it kept in close touch with the nations represented at the Council, which held several meetings following the Mukden incident in response to China's request. To the latter's disappointment, however, the Council at first failed to adopt any drastic measures to sanction Japan, instead adjourning on 30 September after exhorting the two countries not to worsen the situation in Manchuria.

The lack of strong action in support of China reflected the views of officials in Washington and London that it would be best to let the Japanese settle the incident with minimal of outside interference, to see if it really was a case involving a minor dispute over treaty rights. ... For this reason, neither Secretary of State Henry L Stimson nor Foreign Secretary John Simon was willing at the time to condemn Japan's military action as a violation of the pact of Paris. ... Before October, the United States and Britain were reluctant to take that step [of taking China's side], but hoped that the civilian leaders in Tokyo would adopt measures to restore the status quo so as to confirm Japan's commitment to the existing system of international affairs."


_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to reznap)
Post #: 20
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 4:51:57 AM   
reznap

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline

Japanese attacked Manchuria at Sept. and took many months to occupy the whole territoty there. By the end of last year Western Powers THOUGHT Japanese would just withdraw soon. Of course they "accept" the excuse provided by Japan then.

However, NEVER EVER would the full occupation of Manchuria by Japan be justified and "accepted" by international community then. You simply cannot invade and occupy a large region of anther country by "economic reasons". In some cases you can attack and temporarily invade a country, but taking a large region from another country is just WAY TOO beyond the question.





quote:

at least until October (possibly November), the Western Powers accepted Japan's reason for invading Manchuria ... to protect its economic interests

(in reply to eMonticello)
Post #: 21
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 7:16:35 AM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: reznap
Japanese attacked Manchuria at Sept. and took many months to occupy the whole territoty there. By the end of last year Western Powers THOUGHT Japanese would just withdraw soon. Of course they "accept" the excuse provided by Japan then.

However, NEVER EVER would the full occupation of Manchuria by Japan be justified and "accepted" by international community then. You simply cannot invade and occupy a large region of anther country by "economic reasons". In some cases you can attack and temporarily invade a country, but taking a large region from another country is just WAY TOO beyond the question.

quote:

at least until October (possibly November), the Western Powers accepted Japan's reason for invading Manchuria ... to protect its economic interests



Please find the quote where I suggested the occupation was justified and accepted by the Western Powers. Allow me to quote myself:

"In 1931, however, they had a reasonably good international reputation and their invasion of Manchuria was seen as an attempt to protect their economic interests ... something that the Western Powers accepted."

I said nothing about 1932, their continued aggression, or subsequent occupation of Manchuria. If the Japanese had withdrawn to their initial positions (they were, after all, already in Manchuria because of their special status), then the Western Powers would have accepted that the invasion was due to a treaty dispute.

With regard to it would never be accepted by Western Powers that one country can invade and occupy another country for economic reasons, well I have three examples that counter this statement:

a) Indo-China - France
b) India - Great Britain
c) Haiti (between 1915-1934) - United States

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to reznap)
Post #: 22
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 9:37:57 AM   
schury

 

Posts: 279
Joined: 4/3/2005
Status: offline
axis is too weak you should give them a way to win the game,or give a fantasy senario to enhance them

(in reply to guestman)
Post #: 23
RE: honest evaluation of the game - 4/10/2005 4:06:27 PM   
solops

 

Posts: 739
Joined: 1/31/2002
From: Central Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: schury

axis is too weak you should give them a way to win the game,or give a fantasy senario to enhance them


I have had little difficulty winning as Germany against the AI on "normal" setting.

<edit> well...I have to admit that there were some really tight moments on the Eastern Front and another in the Med.

(in reply to schury)
Post #: 24
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Gary Grigsby's World at War >> honest evaluation of the game Page: [1]
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

0.223