Modern VS WWII combat - Which do you prefer?

[Don Maddox]

I know there are some members of Warfare HQ who play World War II exclusively. There are some others who really like the fast pace and technology of combat on the modern battlefield. Do most prefer one type or the other, or do most people play a mix of both types of TOAW scenarios?

Which do you prefer and why?

[ER_Chaser]

The reason is that the scenarios designed based on WWII are usually "richer", in several ways: it has true historical background, hence it brought up more feeling of "beating" some events historically; in WWII, usually the battlefield was more "balanced" and each side had its own edge, the result more depended on commander's decisions (this as contrast to the "modern" scenarios, without even looking into them, if I want to win, I just choose US side, ... partially because the game database favors US weapon system too much + designers favors US side too much, which makes the games boring, one-sided.) The database of weapon systems for WWII were better "tested" (either in the sense of throughout the war or in many gameplays) and widely accepted (usually wargames agree with each other quite much on WWII weapon ratings.), while the weapons during cold wars lack such test base either in real or virtual world (there was rarely any "sysmetric" war fought after WWII, all one-sided, esp. weapon-wise). And finally only in WWII we had example of large scale campaigns and the setup and progress of history is surely beyond any man's hypothesis ---- thus it is much more interesting than fighting some "make-up" battles in 2020 or something.

[Reno]

I agree with ER. Somehow WW2 battles are more epic.

[Mantis]

WWII, for two reasons.

Firstly, as I've stated before, I much prefer campaigns. Hey, I have no problems fighting a Kursk, or D-Day or Bulge, but dammit, I wanna be the one who decided that that was the way to go! I like the strategic options, and thus far the WWII campaign games are the only way. I'd love to find additional scenarios that are 'epic' in preportion; one's that give a player a great deal of strategic flexibility. I don't like being limited into only one way of doing things. (BTW, if any of you know of a fictional scenario like this, please let me know!)

Secondly, even if there was a fictional scenario of the scope of a campaign WWII type, there is the sense of history, the familiarity I have with the situation, the fact that I've been designing a WWII campaign boardgame for half of my life, etc etc etc.

[Don Maddox]

Well, I must admit that WWII scenarios hold a special place in my heart. But having said that, the vast majority of WWII situations will be extrememly hard fought battles that play out in general terms much like they did in history. That's not to say they're not fun, it just part of their nature.

Modern battles, on the other hand, are usually much more unpredictable. Modern weapon systems are so lethal and fast moving that deep attacks with massive firpower are now possible. One or two turns can completely change the whole makeup of a scenario. The many options available to the modern commander make these scenarios complex, but they also make them much harder for scenario designers to balance. If one powerful unit is mishandled it can alter the balance of power significantly one way or the other.

Bottom line: I like both.:bandit:

[Major Banned]

Originally posted by Maddog
Well, I must admit that WWII scenarios hold a special place in my heart. But having said that, the vast majority of WWII situations will be extrememly hard fought battles that play out in general terms much like they did in history. That's not to say they're not fun, it just part of their nature.

Modern battles, on the other hand, are usually much more unpredictable. Modern weapon systems are so lethal and fast moving that deep attacks with massive firpower are now possible. One or two turns can completely change the whole makeup of a scenario. The many options available to the modern commander make these scenarios complex, but they also make them much harder for scenario designers to balance. If one powerful unit is mishandled it can alter the balance of power significantly one way or the other.

Bottom line: I like both.:bandit:

I like both, but I prefer the modern scenarios. After years of playing every possible battle in WW II, it's refreshing to play something that has some element of surprise to it. It's just not TOAW, but wargames in general. WW II has just been done to death for me. At least with the modern stuff, you can get some variation and no preconceived notions of how the battle should be fought.

[Fading Captain]

I enjoy playing certain scenarios for historical reasons. Sometimes I like to play a battle that I have just read about. And I like my scenarios to be well researched on the designer's end.

But most of the time I tend to play a scenario based on whether it offers strategic depth, balance, and a healthy dose of variability.

So I'll play any time period as long as it offers a nice strategic challenge. Doesn't matter if it's WWII or modern.

But with TOAW, I think that most of us follow the path set by the scenario designers. Some of the best designed scenarios are WWII. I love playing WWII battles, but I also like the extra mobility and firepower in the modern scenarios. I'd play a lot more modern scenarios if there were more good ones to play--and the same thing holds true for WWI scenarios.

Fading Captain

[Martin Schenkel]

Personally, I prefer WW2. That's my main area of interest and research. For me, wargames are more about re-enacting a battle/campaign/war, rather than simply a 'game'. I like to follow the actual historical paths, roughly at least (it's not always possible when playing a game). IMHO, you get a better feel for the situation/circumstances, and realize some of the specific difficulties involved in a particular campaign. I guess I'm a historian before a gamer :freak: So many of the modern scenarios available are hypothetical, which I tend to shy away from, but sometimes they're fun.

[Spleen]

Modern!

WWII has been done too many times. Ive played WWII scenarios since I can remember (axis allies etc etc etc)

Im tired of the same old conflict.

Furthermore Modern warfare is much more of a challenge. Lets look at the presence of the OICW. This gun makes trench warfare obsolete. Opponents of soldiers with the OICW better not think they can hide behind logs or in trenches, it means a whole new way of playing infantry.

Ranges are more extreme. Combat projection more intense. Carrier taskforces are no longer the fortresses they once were.

Its more complex and therefore more fun.

The units are more interesting. The Bradley is far more interesting to me than any Sherman.

I want to fight wars like they are fought now, against enemies we have now.

How much more rewarding to rip through Iraqi or North Korean Armor than .... German's.


The battlefield is more unique. We are talking cities, highways and distances that can be crossed in a fraction of the time it took the armies of yester-year.


And lastly the WWII Sim has been done and redone too many times. For this reason alone, I wont be upgrading to CMBB. I will still play CMOO but further gaming will be on Steel Panthers 3 and Tacops 4

[Tim McBride]

Well of the 3 choices I took WW2. But my favorite game period is really Napolean/Civil War era at the tactical scale.

_Tim

[Mantis]

Does anyone know of a fictional scenario that offers the strategic depth of a Europe Aflame? I have no problem at all with that, and I'd love suggestions. If someone writes a better scenario (overall, but especially on the strategic side) than EA, it will have my vote.

This is why I'm gung ho on trying out the LOTR scenario that (Rhino, I believe?) is coming in a couple weeks. The potentials there are interesting, and I look forward to not having a clue what to expect when I open the map.

Also on this topic, I really really would like to get my hands on a huuuuuge map of the entire world. I want to take a crack at converting my WWII board game to TOAW, as it offers far more depth than even EA. But I know that I'm a lazy bugger when it comes to things like making maps, and I'll just never do it. Dan mentioned that he might have something on his system at home (need to wait a few days to receive it), but the more maps I could get my hands on, the better.

Any suggestions on either of these?

[Von Manstein]

Mantis have you tried Third World War by Trey Marshall? It is a HUGE map. It covers most of the middle east as well as most if not all of Europe. And of course it is all with modern equipment. :D

[ER_Chaser]

WWII won!
:ar15:

[KG_ThorsHammer]

WWII,,definately, for a number of reasons. First, it was a huge war covering many different theaters of operations. Second, it had clearly defined reasons..ie bad guys try to take over world, good guys try to stop them (although I wouldnt call the Russians good guys at that time,,just allies). Third, The combat was much simpler and like the battles of ancient times in which armies faced each other in a death struggle. Tanks, guns, planes, all having to get to a fairly close distance from one and other, making computer gaming much more fun. All that said and done, I can pretty much get into any game as I just like to play:)

[Don Maddox]

If you want a scenario that really illustrates the differences between WWII and moden combat, give Daniel McBride's Indo-Pak scenario a try. This one really presents the respective commanders with some difficult choices.

Although there are plenty of hard hitting forces available, you get the distinct feeling that you must be very cautious about how you employ your units.

[Southern Dandy]

Originally posted by Mantis
Also on this topic, I really really would like to get my hands on a huuuuuge map of the entire world. I want to take a crack at converting my WWII board game to TOAW, as it offers far more depth than even EA. But I know that I'm a lazy bugger when it comes to things like making maps, and I'll just never do it. Dan mentioned that he might have something on his system at home (need to wait a few days to receive it), but the more maps I could get my hands on, the better.

Any suggestions on either of these?

If I'm not mistaken, I believe someone had posted a WW2 scenario on www.wargamer.com that covered the entire globe at 50 km/hex. I'd have to visit and check their archives to make sure that I didn't just imagine this.

You'll probably beat me there, but if I do find it, I'll post a follow-up with more information.

****
Okey-dokey....I'm back from the other website and the one I was thinking of is there.

It is the 3rd scenario under the ACOW listings and is titled "World War II." Gary Skaar is the author and it covers both Atlantic and Pacific theaters. Not sure if the map covers the whole globe or not though.

Hope this helps!

[Mantis]

Just grabbed it, thanx very much! I'd still appreciate any other info anyone can give me.

Thanx again!

[Twoblade]

It's the third one on the list for TOAW:COW http://www.wargamer.com/archive/



The Operational Art of War: COW: World War 2
When: October 1, 1939
Where: Atlantic and Pacific
Author: Gary Skaar
Added/Updated: August 2, 2002
Summary: "Completely updated and revised. This scenerio is now valid to the end. All supply point problems fixed and many more new units added for the sake of playability. Scenerio ends as of 12/46. That's 384 turns!

The historical events of all of World War 2. Both European and Pacific Theaters. This scenario is huge, over 550 units per side, and uses the OPART 300.

May be played as either Axis or by PBEM."

Opponents: Axis vs. Allied