3 Responses to “Opinions Requested: Close Combat, World at War, V for Victory”

1. admin says:

   July 23 at 12:35 pm

   In article <egross.2479.312C9…@mailer.fsu.edu>, egr…@mailer.fsu.edu
   

   (Eric Gross) wrote:
   > I’m looking at these series of games and thinking of buying.  I would greatly
   > appreciate descriptions, opinions, feedback of any kind.

     Well the last two are basically the same game with W@W being a much
   updated version. I quite like them, although I find I can typically figure
   out the AI after a few games.  For example, I recent broke out from the
   Omaha beach and ran 1/2 way to Paris in a few days (this is the problem
   with the map having "sides", you wait for the enemy units to appear and
   bushwack them).

     I’ve mailed a review to IMG, perhaps they will publish it.

   Maury
2. admin says:

   July 23 at 12:35 pm

   Eric,
   

   <<I’m looking at these series of games and thinking of buying.  I would
   greatly appreciate descriptions, opinions, feedback of any kind.>>

   Close Combat: It isn’t released yet. I’ve seen screen shots of it, but
   since it’s not out, I can’t offer an opinion of it.

   World At War: I own Operation Crusader. I liked playing it for a while,
   but kinda got bored after beating the AI several times running. I haven’t
   played the other two, Stalingrad, D-Day America Invades. I’m just burnt
   out on the hex based maps and the lack of a good AI opponent. If you
   *really* like the old AH board games, you’ll probably like this series. If
   not, you may not like it.

   V for Victory: I can’t give you an unbiased opinion as I personally know
   and respect the designer of Utah Beach and Velikiye Luki (sp?), Ed Rains.
   I played Utah Beach to death on a buddies’ computer. I later bought VL and
   played the campaign game 4 times ( a glutton for punishment I know), twice
   each side. I never played the other games in the series as Ed didn’t
   design them (although I didn’t know him at the time) and from what I’d
   heard from others at the time, they weren’t much of an improvement. Utah
   Beach, was the best of the bunch IMHO. This series, of course, was the
   precursor to W@W. It was great when it was new, but they feel a bit dated
   to me anymore. I now own the Utah Beach Battlebook and after reading it,
   it gives me some incentive to play Utah Beach again, but I don’t own the
   game and my buddy lives 3000 miles away now.<sigh>

   I’m taking a "wait and see" approach with Close Combat. It *may* be
   something I purchase, but so far, I’m not counting on it.

   -Myk
3. admin says:

   July 23 at 12:35 pm

   In article <4gknnn$…@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
   

   sir…@aol.com (Sir Myk) wrote:

   >World At War: I own Operation Crusader. I liked playing it for a while,
   >but kinda got bored after beating the AI several times running. I haven’t
   >played the other two, Stalingrad, D-Day America Invades. I’m just burnt
   >out on the hex based maps and the lack of a good AI opponent. If you
   >*really* like the old AH board games, you’ll probably like this series. If
   >not, you may not like it.

   I feel I ought to add that whilst the AI in these games is indeed poorly
   implemented (even a wargaming newbie like myself was able to beat it with
   ease) all the W@W games support PBEM play. This raises the games to a new
   level – I’m currently involved in three PBEM contests in Stalingrad,
   including the campaign scenario and am finding them to be the most
   engrossing game on my computer.(I havn’t played PBEM TacOps yet. Wonder if
   that’s as good?)

   Regards,
   Jeremy