Old Gamers Never Die: First Impressions of 'Strategic Command WWII: World at War'

-
The Strategy Map in Strategic Command: WWII: World at War. © 2018 Fury Software/Slitherine Ltd.


Okay, so I've been trying out Strategic Command WWII: World at War, a relatively new (it was released by Britain's Slitherine Games last December) computer game based on the Second World War. I haven't devoted a lot of time to playing this strategic-level wargame because I do have to write every day, but so far I've played it enough to give you at least a few first impressions.


As you can see from the screenshot above, this is not a first-person shooter game a la Call of Duty or Medal of Honor; it's a global-warfare level game where land combat is fought by corps- or army-sized units, with maybe a few independent armored, mechanized, and supporting arms units tossed in for good measure. Only in naval warfare do we see one-on-one duels between individual warships and subs, albeit in a stylized "board game" kinda way.



The game has different unit display styles. Here we see stylized adaptations of traditional NATO-style unit symbols.  © 2018 Fury Software/Slitherine Ltd.


Per the game's description on Steam (which is where I bought it):

 Strategic Command WWII: World At War is your chance to re-fight the 20th century’s greatest conflict, from Poland to China, Normandy to the Pacific, on a map encompassing the globe.

The game is a retooled version of Strategic Command WWII: War in Europe, which, as the name suggests, focuses on the European campaigns from 1939 to 1945. I have not played that game, but I do know that Strategic Command WWII: World At War now includes Japan's campaigns in China, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific.



September `41. Two years into the war, and we see that although Germany controls much of Europe, Britain is pummeling Italian forces in East Africa and in Libya. Soviet forces are defending the western USSR from Axis invaders, while Japan is bogged down in China and preparing to attack the Allies in the Pacific. © 2018 Fury Software/Slitherine Ltd.



 First Impressions

 I am a World War II buff. I have been a World War II buff since I was a boy living in Bogota, Colombia, much to the bemusement of my late mother. So it should not be surprising that as a gamer, I often look for PC-compatible games set in this period.

Now, while I would have preferred an updated version of MicroProse's Crusade in Europe, a 1986 simulation of the Northwest Europe campaigns of 1944 and early 1945, I figure that this global-scale game might be fun, especially if it wasn't as complicated as Slitherine's Gary Grigsby's War in the West. 

 I love historically-accurate games, of course, but I hate computer games that are so detailed and complex that you need a Ph.D. in computer science and a bachelor's degree in history just to play them. Fortunately, Strategic Command WWII: World at War is far easier to play; it's a hybrid of Axis & Allies and the more adult-oriented war games published by Avalon Hill or Strategic Simulations, Inc. (SSI).

Although it is advisable to read the digital manual that Slitherine and Matrix Games provide for players, especially if you want to master the game, Strategic Command WWII: World at War is easy to understand. The graphic user interface (GUI) is well-designed and players can see at a glance the different unit types and understand how to use them.


Although I've played the game using different graphics styles, including the variations with NATO-type map symbols, I prefer the board game like models that represent units. Here, Germany (played by me) is invading the Soviet Union in August of 1941, two months behind the historical schedule. Although things don't look too good for the Red Army (a Soviet army corps is surrounded south of Brest-Livstok), I foresee the Wehrmacht advance will bog down in the autumn rainy season. © 2018 Fury Software/Slitherine Ltd.

I love the attention to detail lavished by the artists and programmers to this game. The units are rendered to reflect the nationalities to which they belong. German tanks look like Panzers, Panthers, or Tigers, depending on Germany's current levels of military tech and industrial capabilities. I'm playing as the Axis and controlling the Third Reich myself while letting the game's artificial intelligence run Italy and Japan for me), and right now I'm only able to use Panzer III tanks and mostly 1939-1940 aircraft types, although (paradoxically) I now also have one V-1 rocket unit and two He-177 groups in my arsenal. (You can see one of the He-177 groups based in Western Poland in the screenshot above).  By the same token, Allied forces are also represented with visual accuracy; the Soviets, for instance, have not yet fielded T-34 tanks, and I see that the Red Air Force is using Polikarpov interceptors to clash with my Bf.-109s, He-111s, and Ju-87 Stukas.

 I am also finding that it will take a miracle for the Axis to prevail. Although Germany has won all of its campaigns so far, it took longer to defeat France in Strategic Command WWII: World at War than in the actual Case Yellow of spring 1940. Additionally, even though I still have a decent U-boat force and a modest surface fleet, the Allies are winning the Battle of the Atlantic and I've already failed to send the Afrika Korps to fight in Libya; British warships in the Mediterranean sank Rommel's headquarters element while it was at sea on transports. I assigned the fighting units to the invasion of Russia, but that left my Italian allies at the mercy of the British army in North Africa.

A close-up look at one of my veteran units. You can see the tally of Allied units this Panzer division defeated in the Honors window. © 2018 Fury Software/Slitherine Ltd.

I'm 80% certain that the Allies will defeat me, but I'm going to try to make them fight hard for their victories. And hopefully, I'll  be able to give you, Dear Reader, a review of Strategic Command WWII: World at War soon.  

The art of the main menu screen is outstanding. Here we see a depiction of the Kanalkampf early in the Battle of Britain (July-October 1940). © 2018 Fury Software/Slitherine Ltd.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

How many movies have been made based on Stephen King's 'It'?

-
Image
How many movies have been made based on Stephen King's It ? It  has been adapted twice for filmed audio-visual media. The first filmed version of  It was a TV limited series; the second was a duology of theatrically-released movies.  The first adaptation of Stephen King’s 1986 doorstop of a novel was a 1990 adaptation made as a two-part ABC miniseries for television. Among the cast members: Tim Reid, Harry Anderson, Annette O’Toole, John Ritter, and Richard Thomas. The miniseries also featured Tim Curry as the evil Pennywise the Clown. Adapted for television by director Tommy Lee Wallace and Lawrence D. Cohen (who also adapted King’s  Carrie  for director Brian De Palma in 1976),  It  was okay but a watered-down take on the scary novel about a group of friends who must face off against a monstrous entity known as “It” twice. Once as kids in 1960, then again as adults in 1990. (Like  11,22.63,  the TV version of It avoids the year 1958, which is where parts of  11/22/63 
Read more

Talking About Tom Clancy's 'Ryanverse': Was Jack Ryan a Republican or a Democrat?

-
Image
Harrison Ford starred in two Jack Ryan films. © 1992 Paramount Pictures On Quora, member Maya Lachman asks: Was Jack Ryan a Republican or a Democrat? My reply: If you’re talking about Tom Clancy’s iconic character John Patrick Ryan, Sr., he is depicted in the novels as being Republican, especially in most of the books that follow 1991’s  The Sum of All Fears. In the early Jack Ryan novels ( The Hunt for Red October, Patriot Games, The Cardinal of the Cardinal, Clear and Present Danger,  and  The Sum of All Fears ), Ryan works his way up the ranks in the Central Intelligence Agency, starting out as a recently-recruited analyst and rising all the way to Deputy Director (Intelligence), or DDI. During his time at CIA, Ryan doesn’t have much to say about politics (except in the context of U.S.-Soviet relations, in which case he is obviously a Cold War Republican), but his pre-CIA resume includes a stint as a Marine Corps lieutenant, a successful stockbroker who, despite
Read more

Movie Review: 'PT-109'

-
Image
In June of 1963, five months before the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Warner Bros. released director Leslie Martinson’s  PT-109 , an adaptation of Robert J. Donovan’s non-fiction book  PT-109: John F. Kennedy in World War II.   Starring Cliff Robertson ( Charly, Spider-Man ) as Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) John F. Kennedy and co-starring Ty Hardin, James Gregory, Robert Culp, Robert Blake, Norman Fell and even an uncredited George Takei (Hikaru Sulu of  Star Trek: The Original Series ), the film is a fairly accurate depiction of JFK’s naval service in the South Pacific as the commander of a motor torpedo boat given the Navy pennant number PT-109 (the PT standing for the Navy ship designator “Patrol Torpedo”).  Although Hollywood had made movies in which former Presidents (either living or dead) were depicted, producer Bryan Foy, under the direct guidance of Warner Bros.' head of production Jack Warner (who, in turn, was influenced by Joseph P. Kennedy, a f
Read more