Thinking of buying but.. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series



Message

MTTODD -> Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 9:26:36 AM)

Have got open day left before sale! but I am unsure to buy because of posts regarding the air war aspect of the game.

Is it really that bad ?

Many thanks for any help.



loki100 -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 9:36:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

Have got open day left before sale! but I am unsure to buy because of posts regarding the air war aspect of the game.

Is it really that bad ?

Many thanks for any help.


No its not that bad

the model in WiTW is better, but this works (with problems). In some respects it models the overall flow of the airwar very well, as Soviet fighters slowly catch up in quality terms (and then add on numerical advantage). It captures the indirect effect of air power well enough (you disrupt more than you kill with bombers).

against, it can be a lot of work for small gains, you have too much control over some aspects (these two are related) and without some restraint the Soviet airforce can pound the Germans into non-existance (which is why there is a common house rule of no more than 3 attacks against a given airbase).

Equally some aspects are a bit opaque, but it sort of makes sense if you play by common sense.



vandorenp -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 5:22:55 PM)

Ditto what Loki wrote. I like the game very much. Management of the air war has learning curve. Use the forum search to find threads on the approaches to use. For instance http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3753805&mpage=1&key=vandorenp�



MTTODD -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 5:59:08 PM)

Sorry when you say house rule, I assume that just applies to Human v Human ?

It would not stop the AI as the Soviet airforce pounding the Germans into non-existence.




morvael -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 6:06:50 PM)

On latest patch I'm losing 60 bombers per raid (escorted), even as my armies approach Berlin in February '45. It seems all fighters are present to defend the capital, in the south (Austria) it is much easier, I admit. The new intercept rules make a difference.



loki100 -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 6:33:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MTTODD

Sorry when you say house rule, I assume that just applies to Human v Human ?

It would not stop the AI as the Soviet airforce pounding the Germans into non-existence.




Hi

to be fair the AI doesn't engage in some of the cheese invented by some human players. It won't, it uses the Soviet airforce in its doctrinal role of close support for ground operations. Also as Morvael points out the new patch has wrecked some old assumptions.

in my current PBEM game, my opponent (late 42) has created a sector of front where I daren't commit air assets as my losses are horrendous



jwolf -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/10/2015 7:16:06 PM)

To echo what Loki said, in my games as Axis vs Soviet AI, I have never seen the Soviet Air Force bomb my airbases. They focus on ground support (either offensive or defensive) and interdiction.



GrimOne -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/11/2015 12:46:40 AM)

I like the air abstraction in WITE better than in WITW. There is too much micro management in WITW for the airpower.
Plus the land game is awesome and the AI is quite competent

I think WITE is the perfect approach with WITE being 1 step too far.



micheljq -> RE: Thinking of buying but.. (1/11/2015 1:10:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: GrimOne

I like the air abstraction in WITE better than in WITW. There is too much micro management in WITW for the airpower.



That maybe because western allies air power was quite powerful compared to USSR and air power is very important when doing invasions (western allies did not fought and almost all land campaign like USSR), you need important air coverage for invasions.

Air abstraction in WitE is not that bad really, I agree, i have no problems with it, maybe except that soviet air is crappy, as it should. [;)]

Michel.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.90625