Gary Grigsby's War in the West

After finishing the game I must change my review to thumbs down, unfortunately. There is so much to like here, and this could have easily been my favorite Grisgby game with great replayability, but the flaws are such head shakers that it's got to be a thumbs down. The game completely dropped the ball when it comes to reasonable combat results. Look, by summer of 1944 there was absolutely no axis naval transport outside of the Baltic. None in the north Atlantic, none in the Med. So a German unit surrounded in a port WILL NOT DRAW SUPPLY. Not by sea, not by air. Not ammo, not reinforcements, nothing. It's isolated. Period (except in this game, where German supply convoys are steaming all over the place). I understand that certain terrain features give a benefit on defense. This game treats a few hills like a 1000 foot high steel wall. By Feb 45 im facing nothing but brigades, and depleted ones. I can throw a fresh corps at a German brigade in a hills hex and it can hold out for a month or more. That's 10 times the manpower, air superiority, completely supplied, fresh new equipment, all held up by some Volksgrenadier brigade that has been fighting non-stop for months, because they are in hills. Or a town. Tactically, in the first few hours of the battle, terrain benefits can make it tough to break though. Strategically, when each turn is a week, this defense would be swept aside in a matter of days. Defense in WW2 was not nearly as advantageous as this game makes it. Use any other gaming format, I'll give you a German brigade in any configuration you like. You can have a river with hills and a town if you like. You can also have trenches, wire, gun pits and even pillboxes. I'll take 4 Allied full strength infantry divisions, A tank division and an engineer brigade. Of course you must also give me complete air superiority, and remember, at this time in the war the Allies have Typhoons swarming. I also have all of the division's artillery plus the Corps artillery. I get a week to take the hex, which I will. In this game? That German brigade can hold out for months, even if I swap in fresh divisions. It's ridiculous. The ground war in this game is WW1, no better way to describe it. Not every hex is Monte Cassino. Not every city Stalingrad or Caen. These are the anecdotal examples, not the norm. Where do the devs think the Germans were getting all of this supply and ammo and replacements in spring of 45? There are still panzer divisions that are massive and have huge CV....how? By this time these 'panzer divisions' had some old early war tanks, some 1940 French tanks, and to say they were understrength is to be kind. When I landed in may of 44 I saw at least 12 panzer or mech divisions in northern France. Amazing because in June there were only 4 such Axis divisions in all of northern France (Lehr, 2nd, 12th SS and 21st panzer divisions)They are double the strength of a fresh unit from the states.....with what tanks? Wow, I wish the Germans would pull an extra 10 divisions from the eastern front when I play WITE, talk about walking in to Berlin. How are the 16 brigades of german infantry covering 600 miles of alpine front hold back 40 full strength allied divisions? Not slow down or delay, completely stop a force 30 times the strength in full supply with fresh equipment rolling off the docks daily? My air superiority does nothing to help this, and somehow these 14 and 80 year old germans with outdated or no equipment are getting rebuilt over the alps daily while the Russians are at the Brandenburg gates? It's ridiculous. Why go to all of the trouble of listing the individual tanks and planes, being historically accurate on when and what divisions arrive, just great lengths to make it feel historic....then have the combat reflect an abstract gamey system designed to 'make the game challenging' by totally rewriting history and treating february 1945 Panzer Divisions like they were 1941 instead? Why is it ok to pull divisions from the east that never were pulled? Just to make it challenging? Why does the game treat late war German supply like it's efficient? Or giving german units isolated in ports in the med supply? Talk a bout a facepalm. Following bulge, the germans didnt offer much more than token resistance when pressed, but the people who made this game think it's France 1940 in 1945. Really sad and makes no sense. Either make a game that is a fun competition, or make a game that reflects reality as accurately as possible. You dont change the history just to make it more competitive, you change the victory conditions to make it challenging. This game didnt make up it's mind, so it failed at both. The combat results in this game are just a complete head shaker.

You're not going to do better than this game for a strategic-level WWII experience. It makes things like Hearts of Iron IV look like toys. Here's the Good: -Actual organization that makes sense: Army Group, Corps, Army, Division, Brigade/Regiment... The corps-level is almost always missed in both video and board games. As a concept, inorganic corps-level attachments seem to throw a lot of players for a loop, but they're the reason this game is so good. If you don't understand what a corps-level inorganic attachment is, that's on you, so maybe stick with something simpler or do some reading. -The depth is here: Germans will execute commanders who do poorly. Finding actual differences in command doctrine (like stupidly executing your generals over nothing) is a nice historical touch. A little too often, WWII war games pretend that Germany wasn't a cesspool of terrible management. This one doesn't, and the German player has to work within the bounds of an authoritarian fascist regime. You can't simply pound units into each other and expect results. The air war dictates the shape of the conflict, and you really have to think through how you're going to make your successes. The list could go on, but let's keep this high level. Here's the Bad: -UI: For some reason, Matrix Games hasn't changed their UI since the early '90s, and this one is an atrocity. You'll miss buttons that no one has seen in a third of a century. This is a bad design decision, and it makes a complex game even more complex, and needlessly so. The world is full of UX/UI designers, and it's unacceptable not to follow some basic best practices here. -Graphics Scaling: There isn't any. If you're playing on a fairly large 1080p monitor, you're good. If you're playing on a higher resolution laptop, you can't play. Why? --The zoom levels are insufficient and poorly scoped (there are 2 or 3 levels of zoom out that are effectively useless, but not enough zoom-in levels). --Worse, there's no resolution scaling. That means that higher resolution monitors won't display the game fonts correctly, so the entire thing becomes overlapped -- words stack on top of each other and it's effectively illegible. A lack of basic resolution scaling is unacceptable, and it means the game is fundamentally unfinished as a product. Like the UI design, this is a very simple thing to solve, but apparently nobody could be bothered with it. Finally, despite extensive official documentation, there are many gaps in the knowledge base provided by the publisher. You can know EXACTLY the problem you're trying to solve, be that rail repairs or splitting units, and you won't be able to understand ho to do the thing you need to do using the published documentation. You'll find out that you CAN DO IT, but often enough you'll be wondering HOW. There's always YouTube, etc., but really the rules should be laid out in the product itself. So, good game, maybe even great. I love it, but it's a sloppy, shabby production that introduces needles friction into its systems, giving the sense of the worst kind of antisocial "old-man" wargaming.

it seems this game is suited to the allies to be played in most of this game. As the Axis player in the " Grand Campaign" there isnt much to do. You cant perform any amphibious landings, you cant really move too many units around because they are set to static, you do have air borne units but you dont have enough aircraft to move them, so no real way to use them. Just as the Allies started to invade Italy, the italians gave up, leaving just 15,000 germans to defend all of italy. I basically just sat through 30 turns, just waiting to be invaded by the allies. Also there isnt a way to control whats being produced, so you cant really build anything. So you end up kinda doing your best with what ever the game decides to give you. Also ALL of the naval combat and movement is under the command of the AI...so it looked to me that my U boats where mostly out on a picnic somewhere instead of fighting. Also from the edge of the map on the right, to the Alps and then to the North Sea above Poland I only had 22k in men. I was REALLY excited for this game but after not being able to control any naval units, no way to conduct an amphibious landing, no way to make an airborne jump, no way to control what my war machine is building and no real way to get what I did build to a specific unit...Im going to have to advise a hard pass on this one, even more so at a price tage of $70 something bucks.

Like GG War In The East 2, this is an excellent game for those willing to put in the time to learn to play it. In my case, this was a relatively easy transition since I already had War In The East 2 and had played it extensively. There are notable differences between the games. For example, the way you define the missions for your air force are somewhat different. But if you learn the one, it should not be difficult to learn the other. If you buy this, I would suggest getting the Operation Torch DLC at the same time as it has a number of smaller scenarios that are excellent for learning the game. Anyway, this come highly recommended for those interested in the operational aspects of the War in The West. While I have seen this game criticized for being essentially Air War in the West, some of those smaller scenarios again have much less reliance on the air war aspect of the game. Currently, I have played Introductory Scenario Air Campaign, Operation Husky, Operation Dragoon, Battle for Tunisia 43, and Rommel Attacks 43. Notice I have only a little over 19 hours in the game at this point and have already been able to complete all the above. It is true that the larger campaigns are going to be a major time commitment. But it IS possible to enjoy the game with less time committed.

Instructions in spanish now

I'm a young dude with a passion for wargames. Because of that, Gary Grigsby's games have always been on my radar. I've always stayed away from the level of complexity, but I knew one day I would have to try it out. I have to say, I was missing out! This game rocks! After playing the Torch to Tunisia and Husky scenarios to practice, everything started to click. I also read plenty of information on the forums. Doing all this research/practice to play a game might turn some away, but once you start seeing positive results in game, that hesitation will vanish. On a side note, I feel like the automatic air generation is a little wonky, so I recommend learning manual control. Trust me, when your well planned air missions result in hundreds of german planes being destroyed in air combat, you'll feel great! I'm excited to try War in the East 2 because of this game, but my current focus is on the western front. If you feel like diving into the deep end of the pool, learning to swim there will feel very rewarding.

Playing as the Allies in "War in the West" can be daunting due to the challenges posed by the Axis Powers from late 1943 to early 1944. However, this can be overcome by leveraging the Allies' significant air superiority, which gradually builds over time. The interdiction capabilities of the Allied air force can devastate the German Luftwaffe and industry. This dynamic is accurately depicted in the game, particularly evident when utilizing the Eighth Air Force. The game distinguishes between two main types of aerial bombing: strategic and tactical. Strategic bombing targets the enemy's economy, aiming to cripple industrial production, civilian morale, and communications. Tactical bombardment provides immediate air support to ground or naval forces. The Eighth Air Force executes both types of bombing. By employing these strategies, players can cripple German industry, preventing critical resources from reaching the frontlines. Meanwhile, tactical bombardment and interdiction can disrupt the German army, leaving them little room to maneuver. Following historical doctrine, this approach allows the Allied army to advance effectively. Reflecting on my own experience, I initially underestimated the importance of air power and found myself constantly stalemated, unable to advance. It wasn't until I acknowledged the historical significance of the Allies' use of air power that my gameplay experience shifted from constant losses to eventual victory. In conclusion, "War in the West" is a challenging yet rewarding game. By understanding and effectively utilizing air power, players can overcome the strategic obstacles presented by the Axis Powers and lead the Allies to victory.

Looks like a great game. Sadly, I was unable to run the game on either a Windows 10 or Windows 11 computer, both upper end. Returned.

When I say that I have no clue what I'm doing, I mean it. Seriously, what the ♥♥♥♥ is going on?

Gary Grigsby’s, say no more, an epic massive counter turn based game