World At War Listing

[rvrratt]

Think about who the main combatants were in the early war, and then think about what nationality half our players are. . .

Yep, I am a Yankee and that is what I wanted....late war so I can get my Shermans! Thank you!

Shermans were employed by the Brits as well because they were cheap and effective. A true tank would be the Churchill, heavy, thick armoured and effective weapons.

For treadheads, late war is good. For yanks, late war is more personal I guess. It's also easier to perform horribly unaccurate war films that have spewed from the US media.

Yes we are so evil! Guess the war could of been won without us........Not! I think the war was personal for all of us. I'm sure my family is not the only family who lost loved ones there. Also, war films come from Hollywood, not the media, which I have no love for either. Be nice now, ok?

Now back to the subject eh?

 

[DM]

I believe that the output from Hollywood is but one example of "the media"
The US isn't alone in generating poorly researched films that give an unintentional (or in some cases deliberate) false impression of history (and for many people their ONLY impression of history) - it just generates more of it that anyone else and its products tend to have a higher profile.

Back to the debate though, I was briefly involved in playtesting (and thought it was shaping up nicely). I was concerned that concentrating on late war kit at the outset would mean problems when early war kit was statted for use in later publications but Agis assured me that the system cold cope with the whole spectrum of the war whilst retaining sufficient fidelity at both ends, so no worries there. Personally I would have preferred a release that covered a wider scope of campaigns from early war to late war but the financial side of life (e.g. the commercial attractiveness of producing supplements) obviously drives the output. I rcall we had a similar debate on this aspect when the rules were first announced.

 

[emperorpenguin]

France 1940 and everyone has crappy tanks and crappy AT weapons, and it was historically pretty one sided..

no more one-sided than late war. Strategically Germany hadn't a hope by 1944. Tactically they could still win battles, but so too did the British and French during 1940.

 

[Old Bear]

Essentially this project was my baby when I was at Mongoose, and the decision to go late war was entirely mine, based on solid commercial reasons. 44-45 is the big seller (the numbers don't lie) and I wanted this game to succeed. If the first game bombed then there would be no supplements.

I put that argument to Matthew and he agreed and gave me my head to run with the ball, so to speak.

Buy this game, support it, and there will be more, I'm sure of that. I certainly intend to.

 

[GJD]

The ubiquity of the Sherman is actually quite useful for the US player. Unlike the various incarnations of panzers and the plethora of tanks used by us Brits (Stuart, Grant, Cromwell, Matilda, Churchill, Archer and so on...) the differences in early and late war Shermans are minor cosmetic ones and performance wise. No reason a '41 Sherman '75 couldn't kibbitz for a '45 Sherman DD or 76.

G.

 

[tiepilot1138]

And don't forget the fact that Sherman's are just so friggin' cool! Ever since I saw the movie "Tank" as a kid I've had the dream of having my very own Sherman in my garage...

 

[rvrratt]

Essentially this project was my baby when I was at Mongoose, and the decision to go late war was entirely mine, based on solid commercial reasons. 44-45 is the big seller (the numbers don't lie) and I wanted this game to succeed. If the first game bombed then there would be no supplements.

I put that argument to Matthew and he agreed and gave me my head to run with the ball, so to speak.

Buy this game, support it, and there will be more, I'm sure of that. I certainly intend to.

I'm sure you did a great job too Old Bear!

 

[Proteus454]

Buy this game, support it, and there will be more, I'm sure of that. I certainly intend to.

Hurrah.