World War 2 Gaming- suggestion

welsh

Junkmaster
I am currently looking for either a turn-based or real-time strategy game involving world war two, units should be squad based or bigger.

Just finished replaying Panzer General 2 and am currently having some fun with the scenario editor, but now I'd like to try something different.

How was Close Combat?
 
Close Combat is by far the finest RTS series ever created. It's extremely complex, however, and attempts to simulate every aspect pertinent to WWII warfare. Just to give you an idea of how incredibly deep that game is I will mention some of the in-game details:
<ul>
[*]Soldiers get tired. The more they are forced to run, the quicker they tire. Soldiers carrying heavy equipment like mortars run slower and tire faster.
[*]Soldiers have their own will. If you order a unit of light infantry men to attack a tank, they will refuse to carry out your orders.
[*]Soldiers experience stress. If they find themselves under crossfire or facing a tank platoon, they panic. A stressed-out commander might sustain a complete psychological breakdown and be rendered useless. A demoralised unit in a particularly difficult position might even surrender to the enemy.
[*]Each unit has a background which affects its performance. For example, soldiers that fought on the Eastern Front are much more liable to suffer a morale failure in combat. SS units, on the other hand, are incredibly daring and always fight to the death.
[*]Tanks aren't all-powerful death machines you can dish out in infinite numbers, but rare, crucial and often unreliable vehicles. Their stats and effects are so meticulously simulated that it's almost excessive. If a tank drives through bushes, its tracks are more likely to break. With broken tracks, a tank is useless and as good as lost. A tank on moderately steep terrain cannot fire. And so on.
[*]There are no reinforcements during battle. What you have in the beginning is what you must make do on. Furthermore, preserving units, especially experienced ones, is crucial, as they are with you until the very end of the campaign.
[*]Soldiers have limited ammunition. If a unit runs out of ammo, soldiers can never reload. Also, consider the following example : You made a mistake in disposition of troops, so now your men are losing ground in northern area. You select some available troops on the east and have them run over to the critical area. However, once your machinegunners arrive, they have only 150 bullets each and run out of ammo quickly. Why? Because the guy carrying the ammo runs slower and thus fell behind...
[/list]
 
Close Combat: A Bridge Too Far was pretty good for the aforementioned reasons, and is probably....10 bucks now? I suggest it as a buy. It also can be quite difficult.
 
Hearts of Iron II wasn't a bad experience. It's big, it's scary and quite addictive I must say - at least for a while though. The problem with the game is that it's plaqued with micromanagement. On the other hand there are some who take that as a bonus since you pretty much have every single division that participated in WW2 (exact names, a staggering number of historical figures ranging from field generals, politicians to scientists and industrial corporations), almost every imaginable combatant (sea, air and land), a well structured technology tree, meticulously (though abstractly) modeled tactical attributes, etc.
The part I liked the best is how the game manages economy, industrial output and diplomacy. Though nothing less was expected from the folks that made Europa Universalis...
It would take forever to point out all the pros and cons of this fine game - there's a great number of decent reviews out there, so check them out.
 
Close combat is great, yes. Play either Bridge Too Far (2) or the Invasion Normandy (5). The first one is just confusing, the Eastern Front emphasises too much on tanks (You can decide if thats bad or good). The fourth is just an earlier version of Invasion Normandy.

My only gripe with the games is the AI. It just can't get the hang of attacking. Played over the net it would rule big time.

EDIT:

Hehey! Almost forgot! Combat mission is good too. I own CM2, and love it to death. Especially so because everyone in the game speaks the actual languages
 
Suicide Candidate said:
EDIT:

Hehey! Almost forgot! Combat mission is good too. I own CM2, and love it to death. Especially so because everyone in the game speaks the actual languages

Damn right. Combat Mission is fantastic. All realistic weapons/vehicles, a crapload of scenarios, and the easiest map/scenario editor I've ever seen. Internet play is loads of fun too.

Also, I'd check out Soldiers: Heroes of World War II. Despite having the msot generic name ever, it's still a lot of fun. It's almost like Commandos in that you command only a small squad of units, but it's got lots of depth.

I'm previewing a game called Codename Panzers: Phase II and that game is quite a bit of fun too. Larger battles, excellent graphics, overall very slick and very fun.
 
Also, I'd check out Soldiers: Heroes of World War II. Despite having the msot generic name ever, it's still a lot of fun.
Destroying tanks with satchel charges and molotovs= incredibly fun.
And crashing through buildings with tanks= wicked fun.
Firing a Katyusha missile battery at a train station= bwahahaha fun!

Shame that the friendly AI was so agonizingly stupid :(
 
Thanks guys, I ordered Closs Combat Bridge to Far.

So the Battle of the Bulge and the Russian Front games were not so great?

Anything in turn-based?
 
All Close Combat games are great (not surprisingly, as they are all essentially twins), but vary in difficulty. As far as I know, A Bridge Too Far is the most difficult Close Combat game so far.

Turn based? There are some good WWII games in the General series besides Panzer General - Allied General, Pacific General and probably a few more. I know for fact that Pacific General is available on HotU for free. If the General series isn't enough for you, there is the Steel Panthers series (also released by SSI). But if you want to play the most hardcore turn-based strategy game ever created, I recommend The Operational Art of War Vol. 1, an insanely complex turn-based warfare simulator that would make Rommel break down in tears.

Finally, there is a fairly recent WWII strategy game that isn't turn-based, but is quite slow-paced and very challenging nonetheless - namely, Highway to the Reich.
 
welsh said:
So the Battle of the Bulge and the Russian Front games were not so great?

I liked them a lot. Just have to keep in mind the unit strength of both sides. Playing America in the BoB campaign is a real challenge as mostly undergunned INF divs. are taking on Panzer divs. But it makes for great strategy as you play mostly defense laying ambushes. Germany's lots of fun with all the armor at your disposal.
Russian front is less urban, more open field armor battles.


The old Talonsoft games (East Front) were a good alternative to PG2.
 
Ratty said:
All Close Combat games are great (not surprisingly, as they are all essentially twins), but vary in difficulty. As far as I know, A Bridge Too Far is the most difficult Close Combat game so far.

This would probably be because historically, Operation Market Garden failed? I am just offering an opinion here, but the difficulty I beleive is fully justified, even if the morale thing is somewhat nebulous (but reflects personality in individual soldiers). The one thing that kind of bothered me is that the snipers seemed remarkably inaccurate for the Allies.
 
Check out Steel Panthers: World At War. It's a free comunity conversion of the original Steel Panthers to a world war II setting with hundreds of units, every combatant in the war, and tons of maps. Great, great fun.

Also, Combat Mission rocks. At least try the demo- I'm sure you'll like it.
 
I can still bring myself to repeated heavy orgasms while playing The Operational Art of War: Century Edition.

The Combat Mission series is also great.
 
Back
Top