|
xwormwood -> RE: Strategic Command WW2 - World at war: Video-Review at Gamersglobal.de (german) (2/10/2019 12:03:03 PM)
|
I've used google translate to translate the written part of the review from german to english, and slightly edited the result on my own:
"The sixth part of a strategy series going back to the '90s is for us the best global strategy game ever, thanks to a strong AI and the clever interlocking of simple rules.
What is so fascinating about playing World War II? Why is this 80-year-old conflict still dominating many "military scenarios", be it board or computer conflict simulations? It is certainly partly due to the clearly distributed roles: The Axis powers are evil, the Allies good (even if there were war crimes on all sides, in case of the American and British one could consider the bombing campaign). Another reason might be the sheer scale of economic, social and military efforts and upheavals - never before and never since then has warfare been waged in so many areas and between so many states.
The long-lasting effects of the Second World War are the next reason: as a result, the US and the Soviet Union turned into superpowers, while the old great powers lost importance, especially the British Empire never recovered from World War II. As a fourth point one could add that many are certainly fascinated about the Military technology, which made great leaps in just a few years. And from the players view the new strategies such as the "blitzkrieg" certainly let the second World War end up in a scenario which is far more exciting than the trench warfare of World War One.
But also the fight between two unequal sides plays an important role: In spite of all looting, robberies and conquests of the Axis powers the struggle was decided the moment when the USA entered the war. That Nazis and imperial Japanese nevertheless celebrated great successes until 1942 and partly in 1943, that even the "victory" seemed to be within reach, although ultimately two great powers with few allies and resources stood against almost the entire rest of the world, is certainly an incentive for strategists, "to do it better". And that's what Strategic Command World War II World at War also allows us to do.
Board game flair and computer power
While many World War II titles are based on divisional or even battalion levels, Strategic Command relies on large operations: not thousands of divisions populate the world map, but several hundred combat units. This makes it more like board games like Axis and Allies, including the "comprehensibility" provided free of charge: you do not deal with columns of numbers and sub-menus ā la Hearts of Iron, but pick individual figures and draw them - just like in chess, only 40,000 instead of 64 fields.
The most important states of the world are included, many of them neutral at the beginning. Through diplomacy, both sides can try to bring them against the historical outcome or earlier than historically done on their side. Many small decisions and triggers influence how quickly the two main Allies enter the war zone: Soviet Russia and the United States. The more aggressive the Axis player is, the sooner he has to deal with the two Colossi. But also the placement of troops (in Poland may neither too few nor too many German units stand, otherwise the Russians war readiness will rise faster) and decisions in the "Events" play a major role. Through this combination of rules, fixed events and variable decisions, designer Hubert Carter manages to make most games play like the real World War II - but in many small (and sometimes very big) ways, they differ from history. In other words, the game will remain exciting, even in the second, third and fourth playthrough. And each of them can easily reach 40 or 50 hours.
Several years ago, Strategic Command Global Conflict had a similar series part. But the hex field system introduced since then and new features (including the fleeing and space swapping of units) as well as the revised supply rules make the new part superior. Not to mention the more beautiful graphics.
Instead of exploring individual weapon systems, you'll explore category levels that allow you to enhance individual units. For example, you can upgrade your tank units to the level you've explored in Advanced Tanks, Mobility, and Air Defense. Other areas of research are global, such as "Production" (upgrades cheaper) or "Industrial Tech" (more MPP).
Fun before realism
Strategic Command doens't drive realism too far: all war crimes are hidden. That is alright for me, but unfortunately the historically uninformed player may be lead to the opinion that the Axis powers were just a "normal" war party.
Strikes and other civil society significant events occur as text messages and sometimes as decision-making events. Partisans who tied up strong forces of the occupying forces in Yugoslavia and Russia in particular are included as a game concept: Those who do not cover certain places with at least one garrison unit risk suddenly having a partisan unit in the hinterland, cheerfully recapturing cities. Or "invisible partisans" damage the economic power of mines and cities.
But even in other aspects of the game fun always beats realism. Instead of having to think about trains and rails, you can simply "teleport" units through MPP payment "over the map". However, they have to stand next to a railway line and find a way through their own or allied territories to reach the desired destination. And instead of relocating or expanding tracks: if you invest in "logistics" research, then such relocations (even those of Air Force units) cost less. And instead of building and managing transport ships or amphibs landing ships as additional units, you convert, again by MPP payment, any unit in a port into a corresponding ship - and landing them unloads and gives you back the original unit. Many such good ideas are involved, and in their entirety they will only be appreciated after a number of games.
Opinion: Jörg Langer
What a nice game, and finally I do not have to pay more attention to the feelings of the uninitiated on a subjective note (edit: Gamersglobal changed its review system some month ago, now the reviewer is able to give the grade he sees fit, before that there was rather complex model which tried to balance all grades of all kind of games into some kind of "universal" value system): Strategic Command WW2 WaW is great, despite undeniable deficits in presentation and accessibility. Although I personally like the graphics. I like to repaint the card in "my color", and to deal with small "tank models". Compared to Hearts of Iron and Co., I find the game much more accessible.
I am fascinated by the way in which the complexity of a World War is conveyed without becoming entangled in details. Precisely because of the abstraction, this succeeds: I do not have to know whether exactly 125,392 men are in an army or how many of them are currently in the Hinterland behind the front lines. But as an arm chair general I have to know that an army without supply will with each hex field advance grow weaker, and at some point not even get one hex ahead, let alone fight effectively. And this is exactly what the game achieves: the integration of a number of small but fine mechanics - in particular, as the convoy war is portrayed - is almost ingenious.
WW2 World at War is even better than its predecessor War in Europe; It's more epic and versatile, with a playing field expanded over the whole world. Even if the war is still decided mainly in Russia (with the actual death blow often enough being delivered by the Allied invasion in France), there are many exciting other fronts and side shots on whose further development you are happy round after round.
The integration of everything with everything is great, you learn to appreciate the conceptual stringency and simplicity more and more: If I bring my "anti tank" research to 2, than I can upgrade tactical bombers and anti-tank units in this discipline from now on to "2", and this "2" is also shown directly below the unit icon.
In the past I've had already hundreds of hours of fun with the series, and with the newest part once more 50+ hours. For me, there is currently no better global strategy game, even though of course typical "From Tribe to World Empire" games have their very own fascination.
Introduction / Handling
[:)] Handling in principle well done
[:(] ... but it takes a little getting used to
[:)] very good PDF-manual and Strategy Guide
[:(] No ingame-tutorial
[:(] neither the right-click nor icon handling is optimal (a circle menu would be great)
[:(] no turn replay
Play depth / Balancing
[:)] war crime from neither side are part of the game (especially not the German and Japanese war crimes) (pure "mental exercise")
[:(] war crime from neither side are part of the game (especially not the German and Japanese war crimes) (pedagogical "inadequate")
[:)] great depth despite the catchy "I pick one unit and move it on the map"-system
[:)] Complexity through interleaved rules instead of interleaved menus and and sub-tables
[:)] One has the feeling that one understands the geostrategic dimension of a world war
[:)] Alternatives to the historical war process possible, but no "fantasy" results or outcome
[:)] Strong AI with a relatively finely adjustable level of difficulty
[:)] Many well-functioning subsystems such as partisans, convoys, strategic bombardments, capital relocations
[:(] Often very slow game turns
[:(] Partly too strong emphasis on the scripts (conquest of Norway = 1 click, etc.)
[:(] Unit Reinforcement is the most important activity throughout the game
[:(] AI shows weaknesses in detail, as well as in large or naval operations
[:(] AI handles the Allied side better (because the Axis powers have to play "smarter")
Graphics / Technology
[:)] Pleasing unit icons (alternatively NATO symbols)
[:)] All important information directly on the map or directly on the unit icon
[:)] Borderlines are well illustrated
[:(] only by pressing a key you will get the important supply information, presented in an unattractive map overlay of numbers
[:(] Animations: dead loss, presentation in general "90s style"
[:(] Torturingly long AI turns
Sound / Language
[:)] Amazingly little annoying music
[:)] Powerful sound effects that simply "fit"
Multiplayer
[:)] The asymmetrical starting position works even better with two players
[:)] Hotseat or Internet (Slitherine PBEM+)
[:(] Enormously long playing time both overall and per turn
[:(] Suboptimal or missing turn summary
Hardware-Requirement Info
Minimum: any PC from the last 10 years
Maximum: the fastest CPU you can get (AI calculation last forever and a day)"
[image]local://upfiles/990/DE3316304D944B108E442BCB8D38C5A5.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
