War in the Pacific or Supreme Ruler 2010?

[tgb]

I know that seems like an odd choice since they are so dissimilar. However, there is nothing new on the horizon that remotely interests me until the holiday season (if The Movies, Oblivion, or Civ IV even make it out this year), so I am looking for a big, juicy, 2-pound steak of a game to hold my interest for a while. Something that may take weeks - nay, months - to fully grasp.

I like the concept of Supreme Ruler, but the problems with diplomacy turn me off. Then again, Matrix and Gary Grigsby almost always mean quality, but I'm a little burned out on WW II.

So, any suggestions?

[Sepiche]

Well. If you are willing to take on a big load then I'd say War in the Pacific is an awe inspiring game. I'll be honest it was too much for me to handle. While it gives amazing freedom of action in replaying the Pacific War, I just didn't feel like I was getting anywhere (1 turn = 1 day by default).

But it really is an amazing game.

Supreme Ruler is a little lighter IMHO that War in the Pacific, but it still has a very realistic feel for the most part. After playing it for a while I think the cries of bug in the diplomacy model are overblown. I think people are just a little unused to compeating against an AI that recognizes threats and agressively attacks if it feels like it's position is not going to improve with time.

Both are really good strategy games, but War in the Pacific will definitely take some time to learn and even longer to play. If that warning doesn't scare you away, then I'd say that's your game, otherwise you still can't go wrong with Supreme Ruler.

s

[tgb]

Sepiche -

I am leaning towards WitP, but have another consideration. I had a really tough time getting into Uncommon Valor, but I blame that more on a really opaque manual and poor tutorial. Is the documentation/tutorial for WitP any better?

[dbt1949]

I have them both(plus Uncommon Valor).Just got SR 2010 and haven't tried it yet. WitP and UV both are of major interest to me but with the 90 degree learning curve have left me from giving them much of a chance.(yet)

[Ramoz]

I gave WiTP a chance, but the 20ish minute wait between hitting end turn to the beginning of the next really made me lose interest.

[Scanner]

Although they are often mentioned in the same breath, SR2010 is much easier to get into than UV or WiTP. This partly due to the advisors, which will mostly take care of anything outside of your main focus. SR2010 actually starts out very easy. I won the first mission without changing any internal policy at all. Although there were dozens of units to choose from, I got a lot of mileage out of massing just five of them (Alligator, Light infantry, A-10, an artillery unit, and an AA unit). The main challenge was to avoid overextending myself - the AI really knows how to keep a reserve force waiting for you.

World conquest is really well implemented in SR2010: at each stage, you control the territory you previously conquered, and are faced with another set of similar-sized opponents. I started one day as Illinois, and defeated Iowa and Missouri. The next day I played as Illinois/Iowa/Missouri, and I took on Minnesota/Wisconsin, Michigan/Ohio/IN, PA/NJ, New York, and New England. After those guys are taken care of, I will presumably play as the United North Eastern States and take on the southeastern states, etc. It really gives a nice feel of progress in 2-3 hour sitting, without making world conquest trivial.

I am not disappointed with the AI, either. In the current game, I initially attacked Minnesota/WI (who are weak). I expected Michigan/Ohio/Indiana to take advantage of my distraction to attack me, and I expected PA/NJ to take advantage of Michigan/Ohio/Indiana's distraction to attack them. Everything worked out as planned, although by the time PA/NJ finally got involved I had done most of the dirty work in Ohio. Shortly after we had divvied up the remains of MI/OH/IN, it was time for PA/NJ to attack me! But I was anticipating that, and I have a surprise waiting for them tonight ...

[Samurai]

I have both games, and I would go for WITP, at least until the diplomacy problems in SR 2010 are fixed.

[Sepiche]

Sepiche -

I am leaning towards WitP, but have another consideration. I had a really tough time getting into Uncommon Valor, but I blame that more on a really opaque manual and poor tutorial. Is the documentation/tutorial for WitP any better?

If I recall the manual is pretty good. It's only downloadable, so also assuming you can print it out. It's big, and I think it had an index and a good table of contents. Between that and the tutorial I felt like I had a fairly good handle on the game mechanics.

s

[tgb]

If anyone cares, I picked up Supreme Ruler today for the following reasons:

1) Showing support for the developer. I'm impressed by their attitude as seen on the forums, plus a patch that improves the diplomacy is supposed to be released by tomorrow evening. I even drove all the way to a b/m EBGames to pick up the one copy they had, just so they couod show it in their system as sold out.

2) Not the same old WWII stuff

3) Price. I realized that by the time I paid to print out the .pdf manual, WitP would be almost $80 - the price of 2 games!

Now I have to pull myself away from Knights of Honor and Imperial Glory, plus my PBEM game of WaW to give it some time.

[Scanner]

I have both games, and I would go for WITP, at least until the diplomacy problems in SR 2010 are fixed.

The new patch appears to have improved the diplomacy significantly.