WITW compared to WITE2?

[PaulWRoberts]

I'm sure this question has come up before, but my search hasn't found it. I'm wondering about the systemic game differences involved in moving back and forth between GG's War in the West and GG's War in the East 2.

If I wanted to play both at the same time (not yet linked, obviously), what should I remember about their differences? Where do the games' systems/engines/rules do things differently?

Thanks for any advice!

[Phoenix100]

There are whole sections about this and also the diffs between WitE2 and WitE in the manual, which you can download from somewhere in here, I believe.

[DrHiramTemple]

There is a section of the manual that outlines key differences from previous titles: chapter 30/ Appendix A.

From what i understand, there's been an pretty significant overhaul between WitW and WitE2, but I find most of the fundamentals hold true between them. the biggest addition is I think command prep points, which help to limit offensive actions to shorter, more deliberate bursts.

as for other changes, road infrastructure is now handled on a per-tile basis, and rails can be single or double track-- both of which can be important when planning an offensive. You can also place hqs on depots to increase their supply capability, and place rail repair units on them to further prioritize it for receiving supply. all of this together means there's just a bit more to consider on the logistics side than in WitW.

VPs are almost entirely derived from taking key cities, so no worrying about casualties or the strategic air war. That, and the lack of good heavy bombers for both sides, means the air war (though handled almost identically) is generally much simpler to manage, almost entirely comprised of ground support and recon missions.

there's also the more developed theater box system, including a strategic reserve box, which is a great tool for rebuilding shattered units and is convenient for keeping excess formations from cluttering up the map.

and finally, there's a lot of getting used to how the red army differs from the western allies, and understanding how their formations change and evolve through the years. Past 1941, you'll also be in the position to build most of the red army forces yourself, as opposed to getting what you get in WitW.

hope that helps!

[loki100]

ORIGINAL: PaulWRoberts

I'm sure this question has come up before, but my search hasn't found it. I'm wondering about the systemic game differences involved in moving back and forth between GG's War in the West and GG's War in the East 2.

If I wanted to play both at the same time (not yet linked, obviously), what should I remember about their differences? Where do the games' systems/engines/rules do things differently?

Thanks for any advice!

as above, there is a table in the manual that covers this explicitly, more generally the player's notes may help in that they cover the broad aspects of game play. its available as: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4986839

I still play both and get a bit mixed up, in part as some of the rules around air unit allocation are different. But generally, the Western Allies demand such a different play style to the Soviets that its easy to keep the games distinct (& the axis in WiTW are essentially re-active).

Some of my getting mixed up is no bad thing, I tend to dump army HQs in WiTW on depots as that is good/standard practice in WiTE2 - well its not exactly a mistake, just something that is all but reflexive now. The Allies are not really set up for turn after turn ground pounding on a location, so you need to play with that in mind even without the CPP rules (so its a different mechanism leading to much the same point)

[PaulWRoberts]

Thanks for the helpful replies, everyone!

[RedBunny]

Well thanks for asking the question Paul.  I'd like to tack on my own related question rather than create a new thread:

Would it seem like a step back if I started to play War in the West after learning WITE2?  

I was never really that interested in WITW even while playing WITE1 but I'm really liking the mechanics in WITE2 and if the WITW experience is really close to WITE2 I bet I'd like that too.

[loki100]

the safety net is that they are such different situations, WiTW is basically attack vs defense all game (though more fun for the Axis player than that sounds), the allied Strategic air campaign is central for most of 1943 and early 1944. There are more big strategic decisions for the Allies that really change the nature of the battlefield (the sequence of naval invasions).

its low unit density, as above the Allied forces are just not configured for attritional warfare (though there are times when you have no choice).

So all that 'reminds' you of which you are playing and the core mechanics are not that different, so there is little unlearning/relearning to do.

There is some stuff around the air war that can trip you up, in particular the slightly different rules for how air groups behave if manually assigned to a given air directive.

So its not really a step back, more a step to something distinct.

Another big change is relative speed. When I do MP in WiTW I tend to agree 2 games so we swap sides after the first round. If you get an opponent who turns it around with some speed, I reckon you can play 2 campaigns in about a calender year, while WiTE2 I think a full MP campaign you are looking at 18 months+

[cameron88]

WITW takes 25% of the time (or less depending on the situation) to do a turn then WITE2, i have played a game to turn 64 with a friend, and during the same time have done 12 turns of WITE2 with another player for an example. The air interface is terrible in WITW, but airforce in general is much more realistic in WITW compared to WITE2 and actually has an effect on ground units and with bombing. Other then that, the lack of turn boxes which is replaced with an eastern front and the way victory points work is about the only real other differences, they are pretty similar games in terms of core gameplay and it wasnt a big deal switching from WITE2 to WITW for me.