Comments on: Warfare 1944

Warfare 1944

Hactar — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:12:13 -0800

The sequel to Warfare 1917 (previously) has been released: Warfare 1944. I was going to save this for tomorrow, but it seems that we've had a Flash Thursday today.

By: Foci for Analysis

Foci for Analysis — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:16:41 -0800

I'm going to be late for work tomorrow, aren't I?

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:33:42 -0800

Man, I know it's beach-stormin' and it pretty much HAS to be brutal for the Allies, but that first level hurts.

By: Hactar

Hactar — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:36:58 -0800

cortex, use more bazookas. They're pretty good against enemies behind cover too.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:39:15 -0800

What, are you suggesting that sending wave after wave of fleshy, poorly-armored infantry isn't a good strategy?

By: Justinian

Justinian — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:43:30 -0800

Damn. I never played Warfare 1917 so until the game actually started I was expecting a cool flash-based strategy game, similar to SSG's decisive battles of world war II. But no. I got a crappy real time so-called strategy game where the WWII stuff was just bad window dressing. I'm sure this is the fault of my expectations, but still.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:49:38 -0800

You know, other people complain about poorly-imitated accents in film while I barely notice, but that tutorial had the worst attempt at an accent (I'm not even sure what it was supposed to be) I have *ever* heard. Now on to the game.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:05:49 -0800

Erm, ok that was fun. But I can't get past that level (the third?) with tanks rolling down the street.

By: vuron

vuron — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:21:09 -0800

The twin german tanks are a bit of an issue. I found that just spamming assault teams with bazooka squads works okay for beating down their armor.

By: TypographicalError

TypographicalError — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:29:17 -0800

Well, they upped the difficulty/complexity from the last incarnation and left the same awful controls and upgrade system. The open ground level (5 or 6 in the US campaign) might as well be a giant ARE YOU BUILDING TANKS? NO? YOU LOSE. message.

By: TypographicalError

TypographicalError — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:29:32 -0800

Which is to say, it's a bad game.

By: cortex

cortex — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:45:32 -0800

The bad drill sergeant in the tutorial really is something, yeah. It's like Assef Mandi pretending to be John Oliver pretending to be an American drill sergeant but only knowing how to do sort of a southern accent type thing.

By: a robot made out of meat

a robot made out of meat — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:53:40 -0800

I restarted the tank level after my first attempt was 1) build take 2) other; since they start with a tank and a bazooka, their tank wins. Start with infantry / assault / bazooka instead, and you'll cream it. I had my infantry throwing grenades, don't know if it really matters. Since you get more XP for using more infantry, and lose it for using support the counter-intuitive but best strategy for upgrades is to use the three infantry supply upgrades first. Avoid using the mortar team if possible, though on one level they are nice for clearing out machine gunners. The grenades and infantry power upgrades were what I did next, but they are relatively minor.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:00:29 -0800

Hmm, ok, managed to finish the game once I figured out what they wanted from me. Not bad.

By: josher71

josher71 — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 16:47:18 -0800

The game is fun, but even on the difficult level is really not all that difficult. Took me about half an hour.

By: Happy Dave

Happy Dave — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:41:03 -0800

Good stuff, although the 'lane' mechanic doesn't really lend itself to realism, with my troops regularly walking straight past enemy going the other way and not even taking a shot at them. I do like how they've tied artillery, airstrikes etc to the officer though, it makes him more valuable (unlike in 1917 where he was basically a morale booster). I don't like the inability to stack units in a defensive position though. A number of times my officer got to a piece of cover, then promptly vaulted over the fence because there was already a squad in there and got blown away within seconds. It does force you to use leapfrog tactics, but it means everything is all about momentum and keeping your 'lanes' stacked with troops. Ultimately I think I prefer the first game, but this is good fun too.

By: Durn Bronzefist

Durn Bronzefist — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:27:11 -0800

the 'lane' mechanic doesn't really lend itself to realism, with my troops regularly walking straight past enemy going the other way and not even taking a shot at them. Are you sure? Sometimes this happens with newly summoned units when enemy troops are already near the edge of the screen, but otherwise, troops appear to engage enemies in their lane or one lane over. So, for example, I'll send troops in the upper and lower lanes, and a strong group in the middle to provide support to both. The no-stacking thing is a bit annoying, if perhaps necessary for game play. (huge stacks are just not that much fun) I get why a piece of cover might be taken by a group of soldiers, but an officer or sniper should always be able to join them.

By: fearfulsymmetry

fearfulsymmetry — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 07:30:58 -0800

When this came up last night, thought it was going to be a huge time sink like last time... proving not quite to be the case, possibly because the game mechanics are so much better suited to trench warfare simulation. Still it'll be a fun diversion for a while if not a complete 'where did the last hour/afternoon/day go'

By: Uppity Pigeon #2

Uppity Pigeon #2 — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 01:20:12 -0800

Ooh, I love this kind of alternate reality stuff. It's like, what if there was a second World War I?