Megawar: Strategic Command WW1 Demo

By John Walker on March 2nd, 2011 at 12:30 pm.

Argh! Where's the gun?!

If you know Rock, Paper, Shotgun, then you’ll know about my love for strategy games. If I can’t find a bit of time for playing a strategy game in day, I quite lose my mind. Whether it’s a campaign in Men Of Battles, a quick squirmish in Company Of Men In Conflict, or some multiplayer co-op at lunchtime in Total Men: War Of Men At War, I have to get my fix. And today that’s going to be the Strategic Command World War I: The Great War 1914-1918 Demo. Catchy name, crazy game.

Obviously I have no clue whatsoever. Do I look like Tim Stone? No, I don’t, because I’m an overweight flump of a human, while he’s a rugged woodsman who knows how to change the tyre on a tank. But by the power of my English comprehension, I am able to tell you that this terrifying-looking RTS demo has two campaigns inside it.

You’ve got the first three months of the 1914 Call To Arms main campaign, and a full “mini-campaign” set in 1918 Kaiserschlacht. There’s no multiplayer here, and you can’t save or purchase units, but you can at least play against the AI as either side. Fancy winning the war for the Germans – it’s all yours.

You can get the demo at GamersHell, or pick it up from Battlefront.com.

I really wish I could post the 40MB map of the world the publishers have included on their press site, which features the entire planet (to steal GamesPress‘s joke) at almost 1:1 scale. But it would utterly destroy our already neurotic server. So here’s one billionth of it:

And because I love you, have a trailer:

__________________

« | »

, , , .

41 Comments »

  1. Ian says:

    So this features men AND battles, eh? What’ll those mental strategy games think of next?

  2. Bennus says:

    ‘Total Men’ sounds like a mag you shouldn’t leave lying around when your granny visits.

    • Colthor says:

      @Bennus
      Depends on what you stand to inherit, I suppose.

    • Daiv says:

      War: Total Men sounds like the offspring of a glorious, forbidden union of Total War and Men of War. Move hats on the campaign map. MAKE IT HAPPEN.

  3. tomeoftom says:

    AHA! “THE GAME ENGINE IS FULLY WORLD WAR II COMPATIBLE”

  4. Kaira- says:

    I always wanted a game which simulates warfare where your men stand in trenches shooting other men in trenches with little to no movement in front lines.

  5. battles_atlas says:

    Why oh why don’t games makers understand the joy of building defences? Other than the Stronghold series, I’m not aware of any budget-backed attempt to build a game about turtling. I don’t want to attack, I want to build trenches, and machine gun nests, and razor wire, and cackle as waves of men burst against them. Someone make me this game.

    • Sarlix says:

      Yes! someone who understands!

      Please add giant metal gates covered with spikes and barbed wire to your list.

    • Dozer says:

      Replace ‘machine gun’ with ‘bee cannon’ and you’re describing Dwarf Fortress.

    • parm says:

      Didn’t you just describe a tower defense game?

    • Blackberries says:

      I am only now, after more than a decade of playing strategy games, finally becoming able to understand how people can enjoy playing them without turtling. As far as I’m concerned, all the joy is in getting a little base/empire/whatever up and running smoothly and self-sufficiently, walling it in and developing a sophisticated army at my own leisure.

      So yes. More defense-based games please. Did I mention that I prefer singleplayer or co-op to competitive multiplayer?

    • cliffski says:

      I’m typing as fast as I can , dammit.

    • Tatourmi says:

      Don’t ever, ever, do that again Parm. Tower defence is not what he, what we want! We want a complex thing with tons of baddies and tons of nice people and complex castles/whatever that are nice to look at and defend! We want to be able to build “our little stronghold”, something where fun and emotionnal link is stronger than numbers! WHY DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND WORLD?!

      (By the way, most people I know like strategy game because of the turtling and hate them because they weren’t made for it. Strange there is not 450+ stronghold sequels)

    • Sarlix says:

      What Tatourmi said.

      Also we do want the option of attacking, but it’s totally selective. For instance: do I feel like sending out a small squad of men armed with brens to manually finish of those stragglers caught in the razer wire…Or do I just release the german shepherds. Ohhh guard dogs! add that to the list.

      With any luck cliffski will have this thing coded for us by Friday. :D

    • battles_atlas says:

      I’m not alone? Oh thank god I’m not alone!

      I want the attack button hidden in a submenu, and in its place a ‘Fallback’ button, upon which my entire defensive line explodes in a fireball, the body bits of recently-victorious attackers raining down, and the smoke clearing to reveal my REAL defensive line, which is twice as trenchy and four times as pointy.

      Cliffski if you make this I will buy it. And then become bitter drunk, raving at strangers in pubs about how Cliffski stole my idea to make his first billion with Men in Trenches: Dangerous Holes in the Ground.

    • JFS says:

      So do I. It’s a shame that WW1 is so underrepresented. And an even greater shame that I get always pawned in Starcraft II when neatly and atmospherically arranging my base, building fluff-oriented units and pretending to play some sort of Sci-Fi story-based simulation. It’s all about efficiency and speed these days. I’m getting old.

    • Sarlix says:

      ‘Men in Trenches: Dangerous Holes in the Ground’

      Best title ever.

      Cliffski make it so.

    • Tatourmi says:

      No JFS, no. You are not getting old. You are getting young. You are taking care about your little virtual soldiers because you are not constantly saying to yourself “these are numbers and I am here to win”, instead you are getting yourself into some kind of sweet semi-conscious state, letting your imagination take control of you.
      That world is not the world of the working and number crushing businessmen, no, it is the realm of the daydreaming schoolboy.

    • Xercies says:

      Get Perimeter 1 if you like that, its a very turtley kind of game.

    • DrGonzo says:

      Yeah, Perimeter was designed as a turtling strategy game. And Supreme Commander is great fun if you like to turtle.

  6. Sarlix says:

    I’m actually playing Total Men: War Of Men At War right now. The Germans are trying take Moscow from me. And doing quite well I might add. I somehow managed to reversed my troop carrier carrying my entire squad into a ammunition pile. Needless to say I no longer have a troop carrier. This is bad guys.

  7. andtriage says:

    SWEET! I’ve always wanted Shell Prodution in a strategy game!!! (?)

  8. frenz0rz says:

    Railguns, eh? I wonder if the lightning gun will be making an appearance as well?

  9. Kerbobotat says:

    I love a good LAN match of Company of Men; But I hate the competitive players who always call up the Politics of the Expansion of the Empire topic during the post-dinner-pre-cognac discourse phase. Dammit I just want to build my rhetoric resources on business and property talk! I havent even got my wealth bonus from checking the stocks yet!

  10. Emperor_Jimmu says:

    You can zoom the game map!

  11. Sigh says:

    John,

    You have been on a roll lately with your post introductions. Well played old chap!

  12. Blackberries says:

    “Faster and more competitive AI”

    But faster and more competitive than what? Faster and more competitive than what?

    • Temple to Tei says:

      Than slower and non-competitive AI.
      .
      ..

      I want non-competitve AI.
      Armageddon Empires with no opponent (just the random explore things -now someone tell me Vic put zero opponents in).
      CIV where nobody attacks.
      Settlers where making a good pig farm is the aim.
      So why don’t I like Sim City type games?

      And slower AI now I think about it.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      Settlers. YES! Was explaining that game to my wife the other day. Ground breaking in that it was, I believe, the first game on the Amiga to allow multiplayer using TWO MICE! Epic stuff.

      Such a great game. They screwed with it in future iterations, but I consider the first to be genius and set the tone for my enjoyment of games. I don’t like the mad rush to win. I like to take my time.

      Closest we get these days is the Keflings game on the Xbox but that’s not quite the same. (Kingdom of Keflings is also on PC too I believe.)

      I like a good RTS, but NEVER EVER play online where winning is all. Though in the Starcraft days I did often join the so called “comp stomp” games. In fact one of my fondest gaming memories was where we did a 5 human vs 3cpu game on Starcraft. AI kicked our ass until all we had was one corner of the map. We fought back and ultimately won. Took 3 hours. Was absolutely epic. We all said it was the greatest game of Starcraft we’d ever been involved in.

      These days though it’s so bloody competitive. I tend to recoil from RTS games now and have no idea if any actually support good human vs CPU play anymore. I have ZERO interest in competitive RTS against other humans. I will never remember all the key combinations to build a Flying Cock Marine 0.3 seconds faster than the other guy, so I may as well just not bother.

      I love turn based strategy. I have the WW2 Strategic Command games, and they are bloody good.

      So anyone got any game suggestions for me based on all this? Settlers, comp stomp Starcraft type stuff… I have Dawn of War, and Dawn of War 2. All expansions for both. Barely played them.

      Oh yeah, and tower defense bores me.

    • Torgen says:

      I fell so alone in my love of Settlers III over II. I like how the people decided their OWN paths, and slowly wore a lane in the ground with their little feets.

      Also, I always wanted the map to be triple the size, so I could make a proper village.

  13. Wilson says:

    Ooh, this might be interesting. I’ve found Strategic Command II (set in World War II) to be an excellent strategy game. It’s nice and easy to play, and I think it has a nice feel to it. It’s not a hardcore strategy, but I’ve had a ton of fun playing Strategic Command II and the Weapons and Warfare expansion by email with a friend. I’m still waiting for the Strategic Command: Global Conflict to go on offer and then I’ll get that too.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      My only criticism of the series is the price, but then we folk who like such things are a niche and must pay accordingly I guess.

      I bought the game and the first two expansions, but haven’t had the time or the inclination to pick up the Pacific one or anything else released since.

      I still remember my first Strat Com game. (Before I thought to write AAR’s on such things.) I foolishly broke the Maginot Line and the Nazi’s came pouring in. But most of all I remember a monstrous battle for Gibraltar. I figured if I could capture that it’d help me but the fight over it was viscious and drawn out. I ultimately lost.

      Fantastic game:)

  14. Temple to Tei says:

    Looking for the answer of what do you call a book that is chained to you on metafinder last night and got the thread ‘What novels have a map done on a scale of 1:1 mentioned in them?’

    Then there was a Steve Wright quote of ‘I want a life size tattoo of myself, only taller’

  15. Colonel J says:

    Gen. Melchett: Now let’s talk about something more jolly, shall we? Look, this is the amount of land we’ve recaptured since yesterday.
    George: Oh, excellent.
    Gen. Melchett: Erm, what is the actual scale of this map, Darling?
    Capt. Darling: Erm, one-to-one, Sir.
    Gen. Melchett: Come again?
    Capt. Darling: Er, the map is actually life-size, Sir. It’s superbly detailed. Look, look, there’s a little worm.
    Gen. Melchett: Oh, yes. So the actual amount of land retaken is?
    [Darling whips out a tape measure amd measures the table.]
    Capt. Darling: Excuse me, Sir. Seventeen square feet, Sir.