So - GGWAW - impressions?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

I am playing this game and so far is good. Simple but no too simple and fun.
Any thoughts?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

"Keyser Soze" <info@info.com> wrote in message
news:d306la$jum$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
>I am playing this game and so far is good. Simple but no too simple and
>fun. Any thoughts?

How is the AI?

Can you play a solitaire scenario or game in an evening?

Replayability?

Cheers, Reddog

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

AI is very good

You can play a solitaire scen in one evening. Even a full campaign. Depends
on what options you use (full supply and production/research). Even with all
on you can do a campaign in a long evening

It has replayability because the AI is good for one, there are 5 different
countries (counting China) that have totally different strategies, and even
playing the same countries have different strategies.

So there's plenty to keep you entertained with solitaire..then of course
there's PBEM which is an entirely different ball game.



"Reddogfive" <reddogfivenospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Ws-dnbbiYe12W87fRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
>
> "Keyser Soze" <info@info.com> wrote in message
> news:d306la$jum$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
>>I am playing this game and so far is good. Simple but no too simple and
>>fun. Any thoughts?
>
> How is the AI?
>
> Can you play a solitaire scenario or game in an evening?
>
> Replayability?
>
> Cheers, Reddog
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Only what is missing (a little bit) is some diplomacy options.

"HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
news:4MidnYVf57iXd87fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
> AI is very good
>
> You can play a solitaire scen in one evening. Even a full campaign.
> Depends on what options you use (full supply and production/research).
> Even with all on you can do a campaign in a long evening
>
> It has replayability because the AI is good for one, there are 5 different
> countries (counting China) that have totally different strategies, and
> even playing the same countries have different strategies.
>
> So there's plenty to keep you entertained with solitaire..then of course
> there's PBEM which is an entirely different ball game.
>
>
>
> "Reddogfive" <reddogfivenospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Ws-dnbbiYe12W87fRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
>>
>> "Keyser Soze" <info@info.com> wrote in message
>> news:d306la$jum$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
>>>I am playing this game and so far is good. Simple but no too simple and
>>>fun. Any thoughts?
>>
>> How is the AI?
>>
>> Can you play a solitaire scenario or game in an evening?
>>
>> Replayability?
>>
>> Cheers, Reddog
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

Yes they arte missing..or rather not put in by design.
The start times of each country when they enter the war vary some depending
on what you do.

Example. US enters Winter 43 if not attacked.


"Keyser Soze" <info@info.com> wrote in message
news:d336jr$bum$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
> Only what is missing (a little bit) is some diplomacy options.
>
> "HR" <HR@horizon.net> wrote in message
> news:4MidnYVf57iXd87fRVn-vw@comcast.com...
>> AI is very good
>>
>> You can play a solitaire scen in one evening. Even a full campaign.
>> Depends on what options you use (full supply and production/research).
>> Even with all on you can do a campaign in a long evening
>>
>> It has replayability because the AI is good for one, there are 5
>> different countries (counting China) that have totally different
>> strategies, and even playing the same countries have different
>> strategies.
>>
>> So there's plenty to keep you entertained with solitaire..then of course
>> there's PBEM which is an entirely different ball game.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Reddogfive" <reddogfivenospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Ws-dnbbiYe12W87fRVn-tQ@rogers.com...
>>>
>>> "Keyser Soze" <info@info.com> wrote in message
>>> news:d306la$jum$1@sunce.iskon.hr...
>>>>I am playing this game and so far is good. Simple but no too simple and
>>>>fun. Any thoughts?
>>>
>>> How is the AI?
>>>
>>> Can you play a solitaire scenario or game in an evening?
>>>
>>> Replayability?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Reddog
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

A masterpiece; intricately and ingeniously programmed, accessible yet
deep, deep, deep, simulating every aspect of WW2 from logistics to
partisans. The AI at Normal (there are three higher levels) seems
formidable, though ignoring FOW. WaW intimidates with limitless choices
rather than green eyeshade minutia like WITP. with Verdict: the best
offering yet by Girgsby or Matrix. Overall, I liked it a hell of a lot
better than the overrated Decisive Battles series. You can actually
LEARN something about WW2 grand strategy with this one.

I think this may rival Combat Mission as the PBEM game du choix for
wargamers with two caveats:
1- The is a flaw, inherent, one supposes, in IGO-UGO games, in that
competitive 1st players may be tempted to replay unsatisfactory opening
moves. Subsequent turns are well secured.
2- The ideal # of participants appears be to four rather than two.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

In article <1112917001.756023.262340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
p.oxford@comcast.net says...
> A masterpiece; intricately and ingeniously programmed, accessible yet
> deep, deep, deep, simulating every aspect of WW2 from logistics to
> partisans. The AI at Normal (there are three higher levels) seems
> formidable, though ignoring FOW. WaW intimidates with limitless choices
> rather than green eyeshade minutia like WITP. with Verdict: the best
> offering yet by Girgsby or Matrix. Overall, I liked it a hell of a lot
> better than the overrated Decisive Battles series. You can actually
> LEARN something about WW2 grand strategy with this one.
>
> I think this may rival Combat Mission as the PBEM game du choix for
> wargamers with two caveats:
> 1- The is a flaw, inherent, one supposes, in IGO-UGO games, in that
> competitive 1st players may be tempted to replay unsatisfactory opening
> moves. Subsequent turns are well secured.
> 2- The ideal # of participants appears be to four rather than two.

I like GGWaW, but I don't play games to be educated. I do it for fun.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<p.oxford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112917001.756023.262340@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>A masterpiece; intricately and ingeniously programmed, accessible yet
> deep, deep, deep, simulating every aspect of WW2 from logistics to
> partisans. The AI at Normal (there are three higher levels) seems
> formidable, though ignoring FOW. WaW intimidates with limitless choices
> rather than green eyeshade minutia like WITP. with Verdict: the best
> offering yet by Girgsby or Matrix. Overall, I liked it a hell of a lot
> better than the overrated Decisive Battles series. You can actually
> LEARN something about WW2 grand strategy with this one.
>

I agree. Game is great. Only what is missing (but not too much as I have
said) are some diplomacy options, especially for Spain and Turkey in Europe.

> I think this may rival Combat Mission as the PBEM game du choix for
> wargamers with two caveats:
> 1- The is a flaw, inherent, one supposes, in IGO-UGO games, in that
> competitive 1st players may be tempted to replay unsatisfactory opening
> moves. Subsequent turns are well secured.

I agree again but as I know from experience this is the problem for all PBEM
games.

> 2- The ideal # of participants appears be to four rather than two.

Absolutely.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

> I agree. Game is great. Only what is missing (but not too much as I
have
> said) are some diplomacy options, especially for Spain and Turkey in
Europe.

Not sure about that. Omitting (for the most) part diplomatic
considerations renders it a better solo game, IMO. Given the strategic
depth, I think this would be gilding the lily. Also limited diplomacy
increases the PBEM flexibilty by allowing the computer to take a side
and participate competently- easier to program.

OTOH, there's no real individual scoring in WaW, only Axis vs Allied.
An ahistorical combination that has appeared on the forum may consist
of Japan and Germany teaming up to put the land squeeze on the USSR.
Plausible miltarily but not psychologically methinks.

> I agree again but as I know from experience this is the problem for
all PBEM
> games.

Really? For WEGO games? CM PBEM is as secure as a Swiss bank. Problem
is, two turns require 3 emails. It's rather laborious. When I posted re
this issue in the Matrix forum, the developers reacted as if shocked,
SHOCKED, that anyone would stoop so low as to build up a library of
opening moves. Hehe.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

<p.oxford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1112994105.577942.78990@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>> I agree again but as I know from experience this is the problem for
> all PBEM
>> games.
>
> Really? For WEGO games? CM PBEM is as secure as a Swiss bank. Problem
> is, two turns require 3 emails. It's rather laborious. When I posted re
> this issue in the Matrix forum, the developers reacted as if shocked,
> SHOCKED, that anyone would stoop so low as to build up a library of
> opening moves. Hehe.

If CM is Combat Missions game then it is a different type of game and
different story. I meant to global strategy games (1 turn = 1 e-mail)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

>If CM is Combat Missions game then it is a different type of game and
different story. I meant to global strategy games (1 turn = 1 e-mail)

Actually in WaW 1 turn requires 4 email exchanges per turn/season - if
four are participating. I don't think this is onerous provided your
partners are non-flaky types. It would be a stroke of genius if future
game developpers offered a provision generating a HOST who could reset
absent players to AI control if necessary.

The eagerly awaited multiple turn PBEM game from Matrix is the
Napoleonic PC port Empire in Arms. I believe 6 or 7 powers are
represented, so PBEM participants may be required to submit character
references guaranteeing timely contractual performance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical (More info?)

p.oxford@comcast.net wrote:
> It would be a stroke of genius if future
> game developpers offered a provision generating a HOST who could
reset
> absent players to AI control if necessary.

Very good idea - especially for a game like Empires in Arms as you
mentioned, GGWaW is on paper a 5-player PBEM game, in reality because
of the lack of diplomatic options it will mostly be played as a
2-player PBEM game.

The "hook" of EiA *is* the diplomatic wealing and dealing - 6 or 7
player PBEM games would benefit greatly from the "return player to AI
control" feature as you described

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx