Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Reginleif, Feb 12, 2011.
Yeah, the first album's always better than the sophomore slump.
Bah, WWII was the rare sequel to a stellar game that was actually better than the original. With tons of new factions, playable theaters, and loads of new gameplay options, it was just an overall better version. For example:
Planes and tanks: Although fun when the expansion pack for the first one came out, they were really, really, buggy. If you knew how to use them, you got a bit of an advantage, but other than that, they were just broken. The most planes could do was reconnaissance, and even then, most of the time, ended up in dogfights that would damage the planes beyond repair. Tanks appear too late to actually make a difference, and were horribly slow and inefficient. At most they proved to scare the A.I. in battle, but even then the effect on the outcome of the battle was minimal at best.
Now, in the sequel, planes and tanks actually had a very crucial effect on the outcome of battles, and even entire campaigns. Dogfights, although still present, seemed to have been toned down a bit, with surviving planes actually, you know, being able to be used again. New options regarding bombers expand game play even more, as now you have away to attack your enemies facilities without a direct assault by troops. And of course, their ability to directly attack and destroy defenses was a huge improvement over a major flaw in the first version. No longer did you have to tediously micromanage constant human wave attacks, but rather, could decimate slovenly troops with just the click of a button. Tanks too, now play a crucial role, in fact, they can make or break a battle. Tanks now actually have the speed to catch up, if not pass up walking troops on the battle field, and have the firepower to back it up. A massed tank offense can be devastating to the unprepared enemy (as the A.I. always is, just look at France).
Naval battles: Not much has changed between versions, but the expanded gameplay involving the use of planes has radically changed the way naval battles can be fought. No longer do you just have to rely on firepower alone, but rather, a sly commander can use aircraft carriers to his full advantage. Just look at the scenario battle Midway, ships don't even need to come in contact with one another to win a battle anymore! Submarines have also changed, and although a revolutionary expansion to the original game, just like planes and tanks, were buggy and of dubious usefulness. Most of the time, they were extremely expensive, one usually only being able a very tiny fleet, and even then, most of the time they would just attack merchant ships, and piss of neutral powers. Now, in the new version, they can actually do stuff.
New theaters: In the first one, there was only one theater, Europe, which, although very detailed in itself, just didn't seem to fit the moniker of "World war". Now with the new expanded system, the game can have up to 5 active theaters at the same time (North America, Europe, Northern Africa, India and Indochina, East Asia). Everything from the French Riviera to the dusty North African shores, to sandy beaches of Iwo Jima to the temperate lands of China, there was just so much more room to play, and gave a whole new meaning to the idea of a truly global conflict. Your decisions now not only effected what happened at home, but also abroad. Campaigns just became that much larger compared to the rather concentrated ones in the original. This especially came true once they released the "Barbarossa" DLC, it gave a whole new meaning to epic. With the game engine expanded to contain up to a 100,000 more units per battle, and the decisive new effect weather can have on troops.
And of course, don't get me started on the "Advanced technology" expansion pack, adding such new things as jets, rockets, and of course, nuclear bombs. WWII was truly a massive improvement over the original, fixing many of the buggy aspects and adding new gameplay options to boot. And I for one, look forward to the third and final version, WWIII. Although it keeps getting delayed and pushed back year after year, I have faith it will be released someday.
Guys, isn't this just a beautiful sight?
"It is well that war is so terrible - lest we should grow too fond of it." -Robert E. Lee
Yeah, that quote's uniquely relevant, but not quite for the reason you think it is. Lee was basically saying that some things in war are so stirring, so fulfilling, so awesome that it was often legitimately enjoyable. Only the reality check of dead bodies and burned-out cities prevented it from being like that all the time.
Twain, IIRC, deployed the quote in favor of his claim that the Confederacy was killed not by Northern manpower or industrial might or by the generalship of Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and the rest, but by this asinine Walter Scott romantic mentality that Lee and other Southerners had about war.
That's precisely what I thought, thanks. I find military history too interesting sometimes, and I need the reality check of ungeheur to keep it straight.
When I was a Marine, it was like playing with million dollar toys - fortunately I never fought. Perhaps, I think, I should have. A wound or a lost limb might have been enlightening.
First. Second is too trite now. Though I'm not a fan of either of these wars.
The second of course... Who can resist those lovely Nazis? Only Nazis on Giant Death Robots would be lovelier.
I like those snappy SS uniforms.
Used to be a World War II fan, but now I've drifted towards liking World War I better. I blame the fact the Age of Imperialism is AWESOME. Only 40 countries rather than 200...
I also blame the fact World War II has been spammed too much by the videogame industry.
Godwyn: Actually I find that picture of a bombed out ruined city fascinating in the same way pictures of Prypiyat in Ukraine are ghoulishly eerie.
I suppose it is the ghosttown feel they inspire and the story of what used to be that is gripping and disturbing.
So in a artistic and emotional way I find those pictures "beautiful"
Well, I'm sure they were both bags of laughs for all concerned. The Great War has always interested me more from a historical standpoint, however.
Whichever one caused the least loss of life.
Welll, from a gaming standpoint, WWII has been infinitely better as there have been far, far more video games (and board games for that matter) covering it from various angles.
Did you read my mind from when I first read the question? I vote for WWII because it wasn't composed of trench fighting as much.
Dunno about "liking" any war.
But WW2 was a more just war--there was moral clarity (the Nazis were unadulterated evil).
Man, I can't wait for it! I thought "Elder scrolls V: Skyrim" will be a pain waiting, but this... This got me hyped like never before!
The Red vs Blu war of 1968.
I wanted to post that photo myself. I mean, what could be more beautiful than mustard gas?
But seriously, why don't you go take a nice drink of bleach? Senseless mortality being so appealing and all...
Separate names with a comma.