Daiso Fountain Pen – Mildly Relevant Reviews

From the archives I bring forth a video that was recorded over a year ago and not Continue reading

Review – Revoltech T. Rex

Revoltech is a company that I’ve had little experience with but has always seemed to have good products. My only figure from this company previous to this was the Combat Armor Dougram. I really enjoyed that figure, but I got it on the cheap, and it was very fragile in some places, so I was apprehensive about paying full price for a figure. But I had recently gotten back into Jurassic Park, and when I look for things, I look for the best of something that is usually impossible to find. In this case I had gotten tired of the lack of articulation in the Jurassic Park toys, and I remembered that Revoltech had made one a few years ago, and in a stroke of luck they had recently reissued it in a color I liked better without the Jurassic Park branding, and a bit cheaper. So I decided it was worth it and made the purchase. So what do I think of it?

photo-188photo-195

First things first, one isn’t simply paying for a dinosaur figure in this package. Also included is a display stand with 2 articulated palm trees, 2 extra feet for walking poses, and a nameplate that simply says “tyrannosaurus”. These accessories are super detailed and poseable, adding quite a bit to the look of the figure on display. The articulated trees add a bit of poseability and customization to the display that just isn’t found very often, and I’m glad the company thought enough about it to add the feature. The nameplate is the only part I have a gripe with, it is very generic and doesn’t quite fit the motif, the font is boring and it’s overall small and plastic-y. I would either create my own plate or just not display it with one (who doesn’t know what a tyrannosaurus looks like anyway?)

photo-186photo-191

The figure itself is superb. It is super well detailed and has 15-16 points of articulation (depends on how you count). It is surprisingly small, but that just makes the detail even more amazing. As many creases and scales as one could ever expect in this scale are lovingly crafted in a very accurate representation of the dinosaur seen on screen in the Jurassic Park films. The original version was based on the Rex in The Lost World, which was green. This brown version is closer to the Rex from the first movie, but has several color differences, probably so Revoltech could avoid any legal trouble after their license to make Jurassic Park products lapsed. The paint is still wonderful and very realistic looking for a dinosaur without feathers. It looks very much like a predator that is ready to eat you (or anything really).

photo-190photo-192

Some of the articulation is done with standard joints, but there are 7 regular sized, and 2 small sized Revoltech joints. Revoltech joints have two attachment points that rotate in their sockets and they connect via a ratcheting joint, the effect is like a hybrid of a standard and a ball joint (I wouldn’t go so far as to say “the best of both worlds” but it’s a very good joint design). These joints give the figure a superb amount of pose-ability. Almost any realistic way (and many non-realistic ways) one could pose a dinosaur is available in this figure. But that leads into my main gripe with the whole product, and it’s a problem I never had with my previous figure. This dinosaur needs to be very carefully positioned in order to stand, which isn’t in itself a problem, but it becomes one when one finds out that many of the joints (on my particular figure) are quite loose. The ankle joints especially, which are standard joints, make it very difficult for the figure’s legs to stay in the posed position. This can cause problems both when standing on its own or when attaching it to the base, which I find doesn’t work out very well in most cases. I never really intended to display the figure on its base, but if one is, it is worth noting. The entire tail is also a rubber-coated wire, making it very pose-able, but also fragile. When moving the tail around one has to be careful about not damaging the outside of it by poking the wire through. And the end of the tail comes after the end of the wire, leaving a piece at the end that would be relatively easy to tear off if one isn’t careful. I do like the fact that it preserves the tail’s range of motion without sacrificing any aesthetics, but it might make it a bit easier to ruin in the long run (both by people and from rubber aging).

photo-189photo-193

I’m not sure this really needs to be said but this figure is not a toy. It is quite expensive for the amount of plastic that is used, and one is really paying for the detail and articulation. The paint, wire tail, and many joints of various types would make this figure easy for a child to destroy or lose parts of. It’s a fun thing to play with but it definitely is a model for collectors. Though I’m sure teenage collectors could be included on that list.

photo-194photo-187

I’m very happy with my purchase on this figure. I did pay a little less than MSRP, but almost everything is like that these days. The articulation, detailing, painting, and presentation are top notch, and there are quite a few little touches that make the product feel well thought out. It’s a high quality product for those who are Jurassic Park toy collectors, dinosaur lovers who want a well-articulated figure, and even stop-motion animators. It takes up minimal room and provides maximum enjoyment from either just fiddling around with it on your desk or displaying it. And it’s entirely worth the price for that sort of thing. If you’re a collector of high-end toy and figures, or if you’re a fan and want to take your collection up a notch this figure is worth a look.

Review – OHTO Sharp Pencil APS-350ES

I like tiny, pocket-sized things. Especially writing utensils, like the Fisher Space Pen Stowaway, the cheap touch screen styluses, and now the subject of this review, the OHTO mini Sharp Pencil. All of these happen to be the same size. So the OHTO is cool both in that it matches many other small items you can buy, but it also might be the smallest mechanical pencil I have ever seen, being a little over 4 inches long and less than 3/16ths of an inch in diameter. But at that size will it still work well? Let’s take a look.

photo-162

The design is meant to mimic a wooden pencil. The outside of the pencil is actually made of wood and has a hexagonal design. Mine is in green, with silver printed information on one facet. The tip is sharpened like a wood pencil until about halfway when it is replaced by a metal cone that leads to a very short lead pipe. On the back there is a clip that is a separate piece of metal bent around and friction fit. Beyond that is the click mechanism that is really only usable when the eraser holder is installed. The eraser holder is quite a simple piece of metal that keeps the lead in the feeder, depresses the click mechanism, and holds a very small eraser. The wire-thin piece of metal attaching this piece to the body seems rather flimsy and easy to remove, but I have had no problems with it shaking loose: it simply doesn’t have enough mass. Likewise I have encountered no problems with the quality of any of the components.

photo-163

The lead seems to be HB. I don’t have the package (which is rather understated and nice by the way) with me so I don’t know what it is exactly, but I have no complaints. It writes well, and can be sufficiently dark. The eraser also works surprisingly well for its size, with very little being used to rub away quite a bit, but I wouldn’t say it’s a great eraser. The click mechanism is satisfying and the lead is held very securely in place when one is using the pencil. The clip is also very good for the size, easily holding it in place while not damaging anything.

In the end, for on-the-go sketching or writing I would certainly recommend this product. I also wouldn’t recommend it at all for stationary or desk-related activities. It is very small, and while that makes it portable, it isn’t the most comfortable of writing implements. It will hold up very well in a bag or a pocket, and it looks quite neat in my opinion. I’d just say be careful of the back end being knocked loose and stock up on some extra erasers and lead (it only comes with one of each) as one will likely run through them pretty quickly.

Review – Strategy and Tactics Series (3 Games)(iOS, Android, Windows Phone)

(Note: This is a compendium of three previous reviews)

Strategy and Tactics WWII (iOS, Android, Windows Phone)

Strategy and Tactics WWII is a “board-like” video game about commanding troops in the Second World War in Europe at the Divisional to Theater Levels. The game’s story follows fictional generals from the invasion of Poland to the Fall of Berlin, with the majority of the battles being major events. Time is split between playing as the Germans, Soviets, and the United States, with two chapters for the formers and one for the latter. And while the story is generally true to life, since the characters are fictional there is one choice to be made at the very end of the game that has the war end slightly differently, but it’s more of just an interesting exercise.

photo-31

photo

The gameplay looks deeper than it really is. The map is divided into provinces which have numbers, targets, and factories on them. At the start of a turn, players get resources equal to the numbers on the provinces they control. They can use these resources to buy various types of divisions for their army. These divisions will appear in selected factory provinces (or random ones [and even random, no-factory provinces in this version] if the selected one is not available) at the start of the next turn. Divisions then, on their turn, can attack enemy-held provinces and divisions. While there are some complications with battle handled by the computer, the basics are easy to get: infantry can move one province, motorized infantry and tanks two (if moving through friendly territory), certain units do better against each other, for instance artillery does better attacking tanks than infantry, and planes can bomb or fly within a certain range, (which could be from 1 to about 5 provinces away depending on province size). Below each group of divisions is a bar that shows how strong it is (from green to orange to red), combined divisions have an average of each individual division’s strength. The lower the strength, the easier it is to defeat and push back the division or army. When the strength runs out the army is destroyed. Strength is lost during every attack, but less is lost by the victor. When a unit does not move it recovers strength, and when it moves but does not attack it doesn’t lose or gain. And, finally for my explanation, surrounded divisions who are defeated automatically die since they have no place to retreat to, and there is a limit of 12 divisions per province, so they could be surrounded with a full complement of friendly forces on each side.

photo-1photo-2

All of that might sound interesting, but it doesn’t boil down to much. The main goal of each mission is to capture provinces marked with targets, and since there’s a turn limit it ends up being more of a mad dash. The actual strategic component of surrounding divisions rarely comes into play, but it is quite satisfying. The game may look like a smaller Hearts of Iron, but it has nowhere near the depth, or breadth. None of the missions are large, and one never gets to control or even fight a whole country, just small pieces. There isn’t much space to use strategy and tactics, and resources are scarce. While there is some variance in the units since they upgrade throughout the campaign, every battle ends up being very similar, to the point where the rare battles that are quite large seems like a breath of fresh air.

photo-8photo-4

This claustrophobia is fixed in some part by the standalone battles that are separate from the campaigns; huge battles like Barbarossa, or “the Decline of the West”, which takes place over all of Europe, are really exciting. But in the main version, some of these have to be paid for, which brings me to a major complaint of many: The in-app purchases. It is possible to play the entire game without buying anything other than the game itself, but at times the resources seem so scarce that it becomes quite tempting to just buy them with real money (Or you could cheat the A.I.). I never found this temptation strong, and it is quite possible to beat the game (and not too difficult to do so) without buying a single thing. Still it is unsightly, and I do wish they were not there.

photo-5

The expansions to the game, such as a WWIII campaign, and other stand-alone scenarios centered around fiction are fun, especially the massive scenario where you either have to beat down the US, Canada, and Mexico as the USSR, or keep the Soviets and the Chinese at bay and destroy their landing zones in California as the United States, which is suitably epic. I purchased a few of these before I realized it was more or less a rip-off for the amount I was getting and stopped playing the game because I had beaten almost everything. Fortunately, this has been fixed by having a separate app with all of the expansions pre-packaged for half of the total previous price. Still, I can’t justify spending any more money on this particular game. (And the scenario with the Germans in the arctic is impossible.) This in-app purchasing problem was fixed with the paid version of the WWII-based sequel (they charge so much for expanding the free version that buying the paid version where you won’t have to pay anything again is much cheaper).

photo-6

While the larger battles in the US and Europe are more fun, and have more room for actual strategy and tactics, they are quite long, and by the end show how little depth there is at times. I do enjoy them, but with no government, naval, or economic forces at play I can see how they would bore people. And they highlight the problems with the A.I., which is pretty bad. When resources are scarce and units unbalanced, it can win on time usually, but in a large scenario with almost equal power between the sides, the computer will inevitably lose given enough time. It isn’t the greatest at attempting to win the game. And, in fact, exploiting this is absolutely necessary to winning the main game. The A.I. goes for material more than the strategic provinces, and will chase easy kills. Giving up a single division will keep entire armies occupied for long enough to allow one to rally their troops and make the game unwinnable for the computer. And, in some cases, abandoning completely the province one should be defending to run out and distract somewhere else is the only way to win, so instead of defending Leningrad to the last man, one ends up just fighting over random countryside. This leads to a balancing problem where the computer has too much power in many of the main missions, and if it were controlled by a human it couldn’t possibly lose. The computer also can’t recover from the destruction of an army, as it never really likes to buy units in a way that makes sense. Surrounding an army by exploiting how cheap and easy paratroopers are to buy and destroying a whole 12 divisions essentially wins a mission as the computer is incapable of recovering, and will split a lot of existing units instead of combining them to compensate.

photo-7

In the end, it’s an “all right” game, but not worth all of the in-app purchases. If I had bought the complete version first, I would be happier. And, after I finished the campaigns and stand-alone missions, I haven’t really wanted to go back. It’s fun for a time, but unrealistic, and lacking depth. It just doesn’t have the hook to keep it interesting that its WWII-based sequel (WWII Sandbox, Strategy and Tactics) does, and that’s the one I keep going back to.

 

Medieval Wars Strategy and Tactics (iOS, Android)

Strategy and Tactics Medieval Wars (Or perhaps Medieval Wars Strategy and Tactics) is a sequel to the game Strategy and Tactics WWII based in medieval times. The setting is much more generic this time around, spanning many decades as opposed to 6 years, although the setting is still Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. The game is on mobile platforms like its predecessor, and uses touch controls. The 3 campaigns are the Crusades, England, and France, (and Germany) with several standalone missions that can be played involving other locations.

photo-30

photo-9

The gameplay is basically the same with different artwork: mechanized infantry and tanks are replaced with cavalry and knights; artillery with archers; and infantry with older-looking infantry. The Pros and Cons of using each type of unit in a particular scenario remain relatively the same. There are a few changes, the first being the obvious lack of air power, which makes battles more dull in my opinion. The resources that provinces produce have been replaced by gold, which in reality just adds one order of magnitude to everything and makes the game needlessly complicated (I’ve always been one for simplification in games, 1 should either be the least I can get or spend in a turn, not 10). The graphics are also needlessly complicated. While I found the first game’s graphics to be easy to understand and visually appealing, I find these quite the opposite. I prefer to play the game zoomed out, and in such a state I can’t tell the difference between the units even with my glasses on, and zooming in only lessens the difficulty of the problem, but doesn’t fix it. The font used is also very thin and much less readable than in the previous game.

photo-10

photo-11

The interface is the same, responsive and usable. There is no additional polish added since the last game, but I don’t feel it was needed. The mechanics of surrounding enemy armies, capturing key provinces, and buying new units are still there, just with a different skin. The maps have changed.  They cover a smaller area, but thankfully have similar numbers of provinces (any smaller than the last game would not have been fun). This makes sense for the time period but I still have a hard time believing it (the amount they move and the battles that take place). I just can’t understand how these armies are operating, knowing what I know about wars of the time. And that is my main problem with the game. Medieval wars and the Second World War were fundamentally different wars in terms of both strategy and tactics, but the game is the same. In the Second World War it makes sense for large numbers of troops to hold miles and miles of territory to prevent a siege breaking out, but even scaled down in this game, the battles don’t stack up. The maps should be of cities and the surrounding countryside, not of entire parts of countries (at least in my opinion).

photo-12

photo-13

So I have to admit, I didn’t play the game past parts of the first campaign. The difficulty seems to have increased in comparison to S&T WWII, and that coupled with the art I couldn’t understand, and the historical element that just didn’t click with me, made the game almost unplayable. I played a couple of the standalone scenarios, part of the English Campaign, and then quit. I only came back for this review and didn’t get much farther.

photo-14

This is also how the story is conveyed, no cutscenes in this one.

This is also how the story is conveyed, no cutscenes in this one.

 

That being said, it is the same game essentially as its predecessor, so if that game was enjoyable to you this one would be as well (just without aircraft). And if the medieval theme grabs you this one might be even more enjoyable. Still, neither of these first two games are ones that I’d really recommend: they are slow, and sometimes feel more like just sending units forward than actual strategy and tactics. The next game is the one I’d really recommend.

WWII: Sandbox. Strategy and Tactics (iOS, Android)

WWII: Sandbox. Strategy and Tactics is the third (and worst titled) game in the Strategy and Tactics series for mobile platforms. The gameplay is basically the same as its predecessors, with a few additions and tweaks. This entry returns to WWII but forgoes the campaign design of the last two games and allows one to play as any country in the Second World War for as long as it takes them to win or lose (players can even play past “winning” until there are no more opponents to fight).

photo-16 photo-21

The touch controls are the same as the last game, and work just fine. I’ve had no problems with responsiveness. The basic unit vs. unit abilities have remained essentially the same as the first WWII game, with the upgrade tree a little more well explained and fleshed out (I personally find this to be not worthwhile as upgrades are really only noticeable in battles with few units). There are a few tweaks and additions, though: reinforcements now have to appear in factory provinces, the upgrades can now be purchased with resources since there are no development points, the cost of paratroopers has been significantly increased, making them much less useful (but still very important), planes have been made both more expensive and more powerful, and most game-changingly, ships have been added along with water provinces for them to move on. These water provinces provide no resources, but the ships in them can battle each other, bombard coastal provinces, and block over-sea routes of attack for land troops.

photo-17 photo-19

(I should mention before going on that I have the paid version. In the free version I believe everything I mention is unlockable, but it would take so long for players to complete the almost impossible tasks needed to unlock new features that it should be considered much more restricted. The free version is really a “try before you buy” kind of thing, especially since purchasing only a few upgrades in it would cost more than the paid version)

photo-22 photo-23

The main draw of the game, though, is the sandbox game-play. Players could choose from any European country that was in the war, and, after updates, can now choose from most Asian countries that participated as well. When choosing a country, the player will also choose an objective. Completing this can end the game, or the player can choose to continue until they decide to stop or all enemy forces have been destroyed. This flexibility makes the game much more fun than the previous iterations and allows much more room for actual strategy and tactics when playing. The alliance system, while primitive (with three sides {Axis, Allies, and Communists} that can attack either other side but not countries allied with their side, and neutrals that can attack anyone and be attacked by anyone) also adds a bit more depth, and with that and the random occurrences of uprisings in certain provinces; weather preventing planes from being usable; and sabotage preventing resources from being produced and vehicles from moving, the game becomes much more involved and interesting.

photo-28photo-20

The huge maps (the Asian one being almost entirely new), many countries, and long list of objectives for each country contribute quite a lot to make this game more replayable than the others. The game can be a little long, especially if one decides to continue after completing the objective or plays with a tiny country, but the game lends itself to interesting narratives (How did Estonia conquer all of Europe?) and that keeps the player more involved through the entire process, though some of the alliance choices do take one out of the story (Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltics are Allies, Finland and Spain are Axis, Yugoslavia is Communist, and Austria is Neutral. Various other problems are in the Asian map). The events, such as coups where smaller states are annexed without being attacked, the uprisings where certain countries attack in random home provinces (or sometimes related ones, like New Ireland in the Asia map), the US Navy arriving in the Pacific, Countries changing alliances (Yugoslavia can declare neutrality, Ireland and Hungary can join the Communists, etc.), and the surrendering of countries (the Soviets being almost defeated in Asia will always lead to them being replaced by the Germans before being fully defeated) add more to the story than this takes away, though.

photo-18photo-25

The story gets a lot more simple near the end of the game. The AI doesn’t scale based on how well you’re doing, so while playing as a small country like Portugal, Greece, or Estonia is challenging at first (Sometimes very challenging: I haven’t even figured out how to survive as the Netherlands!) by the time you start nearing the power level of some of the more powerful countries there is little that they can do to stop you. Especially since they like to put most of their resources into upgrading, which makes them more powerful in the count, but gives them many fewer units. The AI also plays overly cautiously. It’s afraid to commit large numbers of troops to a single breakthrough area, and will retreat when met with stubborn defense. This means most attacks when you start to get larger can be easily repulsed (It also means large battles like Germany or Japan vs. the Soviet Union can take quite some time to resolve without intervention) and if the player can form a wall of armies and manage the keep them relatively strong, they have created an unbreakable defense and unstoppable attacker. The large map allows for this fortified wall strategy a lot more in many places (less so in Asia, that is a more airplane- and ship-centric map), and when backed up with airplanes, the only thing that can beat it is rushing forward too fast, and even then with time the player can likely come back to their former position. The player also tends to be more objective based, targeting strategic provinces (which have targets) to destroy other countries, or targeting specific armies to surround and destroy, while the AI is more survival based, trying too keep as many armies alive as possible.

photo-24 photo-26

The random events can be a problem at times too. When playing as Ireland my objective in a game was to take and hold London for a turn. But the oversea routes kept being blocked by storms, and by the time they weren’t, the British had become too powerful, and my landing operations in Spain and Scotland had failed. It took me until 1947 (the game starts in 1939) of mostly waiting to actually complete my objective (which also highlights how bad the AI is, since no human would have lost in that scenario).

photo-29 photo-27

Despite some of these drawbacks, and the relatively simple gameplay, I quite like the epic quality of the game. It’s large (the map is larger than the large Europe map from the first game, extending into the Soviet Union, Scandinavia, and the British Isles. And the Asia Map is almost as large and mostly new), dynamic and interesting to watch even where one is not currently playing. Happenings on other fronts and random events keep players more in the game while they are waiting for units to heal or buying more troops, and can mean the difference between success and failure. The lack of a timer, settings for alliances (but without as much control as I would like), and large amounts of missions make this game very close to true to the title, a WWII sandbox. I like the stories one can create, I like the gameplay (though I wish there was a bit more depth to both it an the Diplomacy system), and most of all I like feeling like I’m in charge of a massive army on a massive chaotic battleground. This game is the game I wanted when I bought the first game, and I’m glad I finally got to play it. It still isn’t very complex (not a mini Hearts of Iron), but I haven’t found much more complex on mobile devices.

Game Review – WWII Sandbox, Strategy and Tactics (iOS, Android)

WWII: Sandbox. Strategy and Tactics is the third (and worst titled) game in the Strategy and Tactics series for mobile platforms. The gameplay is basically the same as its predecessors, with a few additions and tweaks. This entry returns to WWII but forgoes the campaign design of the last two games and allows one to play as any country in the Second World War for as long as it takes them to win or lose (players can even play past “winning” until there are no more opponents to fight).

photo-16 photo-21

The touch controls are the same as the last game, and work just fine. I’ve had no problems with responsiveness. The basic unit vs. unit abilities have remained essentially the same as the first WWII game, with the upgrade tree a little more well explained and fleshed out (I personally find this to be not worthwhile as upgrades are really only noticeable in battles with few units). There are a few tweaks and additions, though: reinforcements now have to appear in factory provinces, the upgrades can now be purchased with resources since there are no development points, the cost of paratroopers has been significantly increased, making them much less useful (but still very important), planes have been made both more expensive and more powerful, and most game-changingly, ships have been added along with water provinces for them to move on. These water provinces provide no resources, but the ships in them can battle each other, bombard coastal provinces, and block over-sea routes of attack for land troops.

photo-17 photo-19

(I should mention before going on that I have the paid version. In the free version I believe everything I mention is unlockable, but it would take so long for players to complete the almost impossible tasks needed to unlock new features that it should be considered much more restricted. The free version is really a “try before you buy” kind of thing, especially since purchasing only a few upgrades in it would cost more than the paid version)

photo-22 photo-23

The main draw of the game, though, is the sandbox game-play. Players could choose from any European country that was in the war, and, after updates, can now choose from most Asian countries that participated as well. When choosing a country, the player will also choose an objective. Completing this can end the game, or the player can choose to continue until they decide to stop or all enemy forces have been destroyed. This flexibility makes the game much more fun than the previous iterations and allows much more room for actual strategy and tactics when playing. The alliance system, while primitive (with three sides {Axis, Allies, and Communists} that can attack either other side but not countries allied with their side, and neutrals that can attack anyone and be attacked by anyone) also adds a bit more depth, and with that and the random occurrences of uprisings in certain provinces; weather preventing planes from being usable; and sabotage preventing resources from being produced and vehicles from moving, the game becomes much more involved and interesting.

photo-28photo-20

The huge maps (the Asian one being almost entirely new), many countries, and long list of objectives for each country contribute quite a lot to make this game more replayable than the others. The game can be a little long, especially if one decides to continue after completing the objective or plays with a tiny country, but the game lends itself to interesting narratives (How did Estonia conquer all of Europe?) and that keeps the player more involved through the entire process, though some of the alliance choices do take one out of the story (Switzerland, Czechoslovakia, and the Baltics are Allies, Finland and Spain are Axis, Yugoslavia is Communist, and Austria is Neutral. Various other problems are in the Asian map). The events, such as coups where smaller states are annexed without being attacked, the uprisings where certain countries attack in random home provinces (or sometimes related ones, like New Ireland in the Asia map), the US Navy arriving in the Pacific, Countries changing alliances (Yugoslavia can declare neutrality, Ireland and Hungary can join the Communists, etc.), and the surrendering of countries (the Soviets being almost defeated in Asia will always lead to them being replaced by the Germans before being fully defeated) add more to the story than this takes away, though.

photo-18photo-25

The story gets a lot more simple near the end of the game. The AI doesn’t scale based on how well you’re doing, so while playing as a small country like Portugal, Greece, or Estonia is challenging at first (Sometimes very challenging: I haven’t even figured out how to survive as the Netherlands!) by the time you start nearing the power level of some of the more powerful countries there is little that they can do to stop you. Especially since they like to put most of their resources into upgrading, which makes them more powerful in the count, but gives them many fewer units. The AI also plays overly cautiously. It’s afraid to commit large numbers of troops to a single breakthrough area, and will retreat when met with stubborn defense. This means most attacks when you start to get larger can be easily repulsed (It also means large battles like Germany or Japan vs. the Soviet Union can take quite some time to resolve without intervention) and if the player can form a wall of armies and manage the keep them relatively strong, they have created an unbreakable defense and unstoppable attacker. The large map allows for this fortified wall strategy a lot more in many places (less so in Asia, that is a more airplane- and ship-centric map), and when backed up with airplanes, the only thing that can beat it is rushing forward too fast, and even then with time the player can likely come back to their former position. The player also tends to be more objective based, targeting strategic provinces (which have targets) to destroy other countries, or targeting specific armies to surround and destroy, while the AI is more survival based, trying too keep as many armies alive as possible.

photo-24 photo-26

The random events can be a problem at times too. When playing as Ireland my objective in a game was to take and hold London for a turn. But the oversea routes kept being blocked by storms, and by the time they weren’t, the British had become too powerful, and my landing operations in Spain and Scotland had failed. It took me until 1947 (the game starts in 1939) of mostly waiting to actually complete my objective (which also highlights how bad the AI is, since no human would have lost in that scenario).

photo-29 photo-27

Despite some of these drawbacks, and the relatively simple gameplay, I quite like the epic quality of the game. It’s large (the map is larger than the large Europe map from the first game, extending into the Soviet Union, Scandinavia, and the British Isles. And the Asia Map is almost as large and mostly new), dynamic and interesting to watch even where one is not currently playing. Happenings on other fronts and random events keep players more in the game while they are waiting for units to heal or buying more troops, and can mean the difference between success and failure. The lack of a timer, settings for alliances (but without as much control as I would like), and large amounts of missions make this game very close to true to the title, a WWII sandbox. I like the stories one can create, I like the gameplay (though I wish there was a bit more depth to both it an the Diplomacy system), and most of all I like feeling like I’m in charge of a massive army on a massive chaotic battleground. This game is the game I wanted when I bought the first game, and I’m glad I finally got to play it. It still isn’t very complex (not a mini Hearts of Iron), but I haven’t found much more complex on mobile devices.